PRACTICAL    ARGUMENTATION 


PRACTICAL 
ARGUMENTATION 


BY 


GEORGE   K.    PATTEE,    A.M. 

Assistant  Professor  of  English  and  Rhetoric  in  The  Pennsylvania 
State  College 


NEW  YORK 
THE  CENTURY  CO. 

1913 


Copyright,  1909,  by 
THE  CENTURY  Co. 


Published,  June,  1909 


TO 
FRED   LEWIS   PATTEE 


267345 


Preface 

THE  author's  aim  has  been  to  produce  a  book  that 
is  practical, — practical  from  the  student's  standpoint, 
and  practical  from  the  teacher's  standpoint.  The  study 
of  Argumentation  has  often  been  criticized  for  being 
purely  academic,  or  for  being  a  mere  stepping-stone  to 
the  study  of  law.  It  has  even  been  said  that  courses  in 
Argumentation  and  Debate  have  been  introduced  into 
American  colleges  and  universities  for  no  other  purpose 
than  to  give  the  intellectual  student  the  opportunity,  so 
long  monopolized  by  his  athletic  classmate,  to  take 
part  in  intercollegiate  contests.  The  purpose  of  this 
book  is  to  teach  Argumentation,  which  is  not  a  science 
by  itself  but  one  of  the  four  branches  of  Rhetoric,  in  such 
a  way  as  to  remove  these  criticisms. 

Largely  by  his  choice  of  illustrative  material  the  author 
has  endeavored  to  show  that  this  subject  is  confined 
neither  to  the  class  room  nor  to  any  one  profession.  He 
has  drawn  his  illustrations,  for  the  most  part,  from  con- 
temporary and  popular  sources;  he  has  had  recourse  to 
many  current  magazines,  newspapers,  books,  and  recent 
speeches,  hoping  to  show  thereby  that  Argumentation  is 
a  practical  subject.  On  the  other  hand,  he  has  carefully 
avoided  taking  a  majority  of  his  illustrations  either  from 
students'  work  or  from  legal  practice,  criminal  cases 
especially  being  seldom  used  on  the  ground  that  although 
they  afford  the  easiest  examples  a  writer  can  give,  they 

vii 


Preface 

furnish  the  least  help  to  the  average  student,  who, 
unless  he  studies  law,  will  rarely,  perhaps  never,  have 
occasion  to  argue  upon  such  subjects. 

This  book  cannot  justly  be  called  the  effort  of  a  single 
author.  It  is  rather  an  outgrowth  of  the  work  that  for 
many  years  has  been  carried  on  by  the  English  depart- 
ment at  The  Pennsylvania  State  College.  The  book  has, 
in  fact,  gradually  developed  in  the  class  room.  Every 
rule  that  is  given  has  been  tested  time  and  again;  every 
step  has  been  carefully  thought  out  and  taught  for  several 
years. 

The  author  wishes  to  acknowledge  especial  indebted- 
ness to  Professor  Fred  Lewis  Pattee,  who  both  inspired 
the  writing  of  the  book  and  assisted  in  the  work.  To 
Professor  A.  Howry  Espenshade  are  due  many  thanks 
for  invaluable  suggestions  and  advice,  and  for  a  careful 
reading  of  the  greater  part  of  the  manuscript.  Mr. 
William  S.  Dye  is  also  to  be  thanked  for  valuable 
assistance.  As  a  student  the  author  studied  Baker's 
Principles  of  Argumentation;  as  a  teacher  he  has  taught 
Laycock  and  Scales'  Argumentation  and  Debate,  Alden's 
The  Art  of  Debate,  and  Foster's  Argumentation  and 
Debating.  The  debt  he  owes  to  these  is  beyond  estimate 

STATE  COLLEGE,  PA. 
March  17,  1909 


vni 


Contents 


PAGE 


I.  Preliminaries 3 

II.  The  Subject 13 

III.  The  Introduction — Persuasion   ....     28 

IV.  The  Introduction — Conviction    ....     47 
V.  The  Introduction — Brief-Drawing     ...     84 

VII.  The  Discussion — Conviction  and  Persuasion  .   105 

VI.  The  Discussion — Brief-Drawing        .       .       .   174 

VIII.  Methods  of  Refutation 210 

IX.  Debate — Some  Practical  Suggestions        .       .250 

X.  The  Conclusion 302 

APPENDIX. 

A.  A  Written  Argument  and  its  Brief     .       .       .  316 

B.  A  List  of  Propositions 351 


PRACTICAL  ARGUMENTATION 


PRACTICAL  ARGUMENTA- 
TION 

CHAPTER  I 
PRELIMINARIES 

ARGUMENTATION  is  the  art  of  presenting  truth  so 
that  others  will  accept  it  and  act  in  accordance  with 
it.  Debate  is  a  special  form  of  argumentation :  it  is 
oral  argumentation  carried  on  by  opposing  sides. 

A  consideration  of  the  service  which  argumenta- 
tion performs  shows  that  it  is  one  of  the  noblest  and 
most  useful  of  arts.  By  argumentation  men  over- 
throw error  and  discover  truth.  Courts  of  law,  de- 
liberative assemblies,  and  all  bodies  of  people  that 
engage  in  discussion  recognize  this  fact.  Argumen- 
tation threshes  out  a  problem  until  the  chaff  has 
blown  away,  when  it  is  easy  to  see  just  what  kernels 
of  truth  remain  and  what  action  ought  to  be  taken. 
Men  of  affairs,  before  entering  upon  any  great 
enterprise,  call  in  advocates  of  different  systems,  and 

3 


Preliminaries 

by  becoming  familiar  with  arguments  from  every 
point  of  view  try  to  discover  what  is  best.  This 
method  of  procedure  presupposes  a  difference  of 
opinion  and  belief  among  men,  and  holds  that  when 
each  one  tries  to  establish  his  ideas,  the  truth  will 
remain,  and  that  which  is  false  will  be  swept  away. 
The  field  of  argumentation  includes  every  kind  of 
discourse  that  attempts  to  change  man's  actions  or 
opinions.  Exposition  is  explanation  when  only  one 
theory  or  one  interpretation  of  the  facts  is  possible ; 
when  views  of  truth  or  of  policy  conflict,  and  one 
course  is  expounded  in  opposition  to  another,  the 
process  becomes  argumentation.  This  art  is  used 
not  only  by  professional  speakers,  but  by  men  of 
every  occupation.  The  schoolboy  pleading  for  a 
holiday,  the  workman  seeking  employment,  the 
statesman  advocating  a  principle  of  government  are 
all  engaged  in  some  form  of  argumentation.  Every- 
where that  men  meet  together,  on  the  street  or  in 
the  assembly  hall,  debate  is  certain  to  arise. 
Written  argument  is  no  less  common.  Hardly  a 
periodical  is  published  but  contains  argumentative 
writing.  The  fiery  editorial  that  urges  voters  to 
the  polls,  the  calm  and  polished  essay  that  points 
out  the  dangers  of  organized  labor,  the  scientific 

4 


Preliminaries 

treatise  that  demonstrates  the  practicability  of  a 
sea-level  canal  on  the  Isthmus  are  attempts  to 
change  existing  conditions  and  ideas,  and  thus 
come  within  the  field  of  argumentation. 

The  practical  benefit  to  be  derived  from  the  study 
and  application  of  the  principles  of  argumentation 
can  hardly  be  overestimated.  The  man  who  wishes 
to  influence  the  opinions  and  actions  of  others,  who 
wishes  to  become  a  leader  of  men  in  however  great 
or  however  humble  a  sphere,  must  be  familiar  with 
this  art.  The  editor,  the  lawyer,  the  merchant,  the 
contractor,  the  laborer  —  men  in  every  walk  of  life 
—  depend  for  their  success  upon  bringing  others  to 
believe,  in  certain  instances,  as  they  believe.  Every- 
where men  who  can  point  out  what  is  right  and 
best,  and  can  bring  others  to  see  it  and  act  upon 
it,  win  the  day.  Another  benefit  to  be  obtained 
from  the  study  of  argumentation  is  the  ability  to 
be  convinced  intelligently.  The  good  arguer  is  not 
likely  to  be  carried  away  by  specious  arguments  or 
fallacious  reasoning.  He  can  weigh  every  bit  of 
evidence ;  he  can  test  the  strength  and  weakness  of 
every  statement;  he  can  separate  the  essential  from 
the  unessential;  and  he  can  distinguish  between 
prejudice  and  reason.  A  master  of  the  art  of  ar- 

5 


Preliminaries 

gumentation  can  both  present  his  case  convincingly 
to  others,  and  discover  the  truth  in  a  matter  that 
is  presented  to  him. 

Argumentation  can  hardly  be  considered  as  a  dis- 
tinct art  standing  by  itself ;  it  is  rather  a  composite 
of  several  arts,  deriving  its  fundamentals  from  them, 
and  depending  upon  them  for  its  existence.  In  the 
first  place,  since  argumentation  is  spoken  or  writ- 
ten discourse,  it  belongs  to  rhetoric,  and  the  rules 
which  govern  composition  apply  to  it  as  strongly 
as  to  any  other  kind  of  expression.  In  fact,  per- 
haps rhetorical  principles  should  be  observed  in 
argumentation  more  rigidly  than  elsewhere,  for  in 
the  case  of  narration,  description,  or  exposition,  the 
reader  or  hearer,  in  an  endeavor  to  derive  pleasure 
or  profit,  is  seeking  the  author,  while  in  argumenta- 
tion it  is  the  author  who  is  trying  to  force  his  ideas 
upon  the  audience.  Hence  an  argument  must  con- 
tain nothing  crude  or  repulsive,  but  must  be  attrac- 
tive in  every  detail.  In  the  second  place,  any  com- 
position that  attempts  to  alter  beliefs  must  deal  with 
reasons,  and  the  science  of  reasoning  is  logic. 
There  is  no  need  for  the  student  of  argumentation 
to  make  an  exhaustive  study  of  this  science,  for 
the  good  arguer  is  not  obliged  to  know  all  the 
different  ways  the  mind  may  work ;  he  must,  how- 

6 


Preliminaries 

ever,  know  how  it  should  work  in  order  to  produce 
trustworthy  results,  and  to  the  extent  of  teaching 
correct  reasoning,  argumentation  includes  logic.  In 
the  third  place,  a  study  of  the  emotions  belongs  to 
argumentation.  According  to  the  definition,  argu- 
mentation aims  both  at  presenting  truth  and  com- 
pelling action.  As  action  depends  to  a  great  extent 
upon  man's  emotions,  the  way  to  arouse  his  feelings 
and  passions  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  this  art. 
Argumentation,  then,  which  is  commonly  class- 
ified as  the  fourth  division  of  rhetoric,  consists  of 
two  fundamental  elements.  The  part  that  is  based 
upon  logic  and  depends  for  its  effectiveness  upon 
pure  reasoning  is  called  conviction;  the  part  that 
consists  of  an  emotional  appeal  to  the  people  ad- 
dressed is  called  persuasion.  If  the  only  purpose  of 
argumentation  were  to  demonstrate  the  truth  or 
falsity  of  a  hypothesis,  conviction  alone  would  be 
sufficient.  But  its  purpose  is  greater  than  this: 
it  aims  both  ( I )  to  convince  men  that  certain  ideas 
are  true,  and  also  (2)  to  persuade  them  to  act  in 
accordance  with  the  truth  presented.  Neither  con- 
viction nor  persuasion  can  with  safety  be  omitted. 
An  appeal  to  the  intellect  alone  may  demonstrate 
principles  that  cannot  be  refuted ;  it  may  prove  be- 
yond a  doubt  that  certain  theories  are  logical  and 

7 


Preliminaries 

right,  and  ought  to  be  accepted.  But  this  sort  of 
argument  is  likely  to  leave  the  person  addressed 
cold  and  unmoved  and  unwilling  to  give  up  his 
former  ideas  and  practices.  A  purely  intellectual 
discourse  upon  the  evils  resulting  from  a  high  tariff 
would  scarcely  cause  a  life-long  protectionist  to 
change  his  politics.  If,  however,  some  emotion  such 
as  duty,  public  spirit,  or  patriotism  were  aroused, 
the  desired  action  might  result.  Again  it  frequently 
happens  that  before  the  arguer  can  make  any  appeal 
to  the  logical  faculties  of  those  he  wishes  to  in- 
fluence, he  will  first  have  to  use  persuasion  in  order 
to  gain  their  attention  and  to  arouse  their  interest 
either  in  himself  or  in  his  subject.  On  the  other 
hand,  persuasion  alone  is  undoubtedly  of  even  less 
value  than  conviction  alone.  A  purely  persuasive 
argument  can  never  be  trusted  to  produce  lasting 
effects.  As  soon  as  the  emotions  have  cooled,  if 
no  reasonable  conviction  remains  to  guide  future 
thought  and  action,  the  plea  that  at  first  seemed  so 
powerful  is  likely  to  be  forgotten.  The  preacher 
whose  sermons  are  all  persuasion  may,  for  a  time, 
have  many  converts,  but  it  will  take  something 
besides  emotional  ecstasy  to  keep  them  "  in  good 
and  regular  standing." 

The  proportion  of  conviction  and  persuasion  to 
8 


Preliminaries 

be  used  in  any  argumentative  effort  depends  entirely 
upon  the  attending  circumstances.  If  the  readers 
or  hearers  possess  a  high  degree  of  intelligence  and 
education,  conviction  should  predominate;  for  it  is 
a  generally  accepted  fact  that  the  higher  man  rises 
in  the  scale  of  civilization,  the  less  he  is  moved  by 
emotion.  A  lawyer's  argument  before  a  judge  con- 
tains little  except  reasoning;  before  a  jury  persua- 
sion plays  an  important  part.  In  the  next  place, 
the  arguer  must  consider  the  attitude  of  those  whom 
he  would  move.  If  they  are  favorably  disposed,  he 
may  devote  most  of  his  time  to  reasoning;  if  they 
are  hostile,  he  must  use  more  persuasion.  Also  the 
correct  proportion  varies  to  some  extent  according 
to  the  amount  of  action  desired.  In  an  intercol- 
legiate debate  where  little  or  no  action  is  expected 
to  result,  persuasion  may  almost  be  neglected;  but 
the  political  speech  or  editorial  that  urges  men  to 
follow  its  instructions  usually  contains  at  least  as 
much  persuasion  as  conviction. 

The  aspirant  for  distinction  in  argumentation 
should  study  and  acquire  certain  characteristics  com- 
mon to  all  good  arguers.  First  of  all,  he  should 
strive  to  gain  the  ability  to  analyze.  No  satisfac- 
tory discussion  can  ever  take  place  until  the  contest- 
ants have  picked  the  question  to  pieces  and 

9 


Preliminaries 

discovered  just  exactly  what  it  means.  The  man 
who  does  not  analyze  his  subject  is  likely  to  seize 
upon  ideas  that  are  merely  connected  with  it,  and 
fail  to  find  just  what  is  involved  by  the  question 
as  a  whole.  The  man  skillful  in  argumentation, 
however,  considers  each  word  of  the  proposition  in 
the  light  of  its  definition,  and  only  after  much 
thought  and  study  decides  that  he  has  found  the 
real  meaning  of  the  question.  But  the  work  of 
analysis  does  not  end  here ;  every  bit  of  proof  con- 
nected with  the  case  must  be  analyzed  that  its  value 
and  its  relation  to  the  matter  in  hand  may  be 
determined.  Many  an  argument  is  filled  with  what 
its  author  thought  was  proof,  but  what,  upon  close 
inspection,  turns  out  to  be  mere  assertion  or  falla- 
cious reasoning.  This  error  is  surpassed  only  by 
the  fault  of  bringing  in  as  proof  that  which  has  no 
direct  bearing  at  all  upon  the  question  at  issue. 
Furthermore,  the  arguer  must  analyze  not  only  his 
own  side  of  the  discussion  but  also  the  work  of  his 
opponent,  so  that  with  a  full  knowledge  of  what  is 
strong  and  what  is  weak  he  may  make  his  attack 
to  the  best  advantage.  Next  to  the  ability  to  an- 
alyze, the  most  important  qualification  for  an  arguer 
to  possess  is  the  faculty  of  clearly  presenting  his 
case.  New  ideas,  new  truths  are  seldom  readily  ac- 

10 


Preliminaries 

cepted,  and  it  is  never  safe  to  assume  that  the  hearer 
or  the  reader  of  an  argument  will  laboriously  work 
his  way  through  a  mass  of  obscure  reasoning.  Ab- 
solute clearness  of  expression  is  essential.  The 
method  of  arriving  at  a  conclusion  should  be  so  plain 
that  no  one  can  avoid  seeing  what  is  proved  and  how 
it  is  proved.  Lincoln's  great  success  as  a  debater 
was  due  largely  to  his  clearness  of  presentation.  In 
the  third  place,  the  person  who  would  control  his 
fellow  men  must  assume  qualities  of  leadership. 
Remembering  that  men  can  be  led,  but  seldom  be 
driven,  he  must  show  his  audience  how  he  himself 
has  reached  certain  conclusions,  and  then  by  leading 
them  along  the  same  paths  of  reasoning,  bring  them 
to  the  desired  destination.  If  exhortation,  counsel, 
and  encouragement  are  required,  they  must  be  at 
his  command.  Moreover,  a  leader  who  wishes  to 
attract  followers  must  be  earnest  and  enthusiastic. 
The  least  touch  of  insincerity  or  indifference  will 
ruin  all.  To  analyze  ideas,  to  present  them  clearly, 
and  as  a  leader  to  enforce  them  enthusiastically  and 
sincerely  are  necessary  qualities  for  every  arguer. 
A  debater  should  possess  additional  attainments. 
He  ought  to  be  a  ready  thinker.  The  disputant 
who  depends  entirely  upon  a  set  speech  is  greatly 
handicapped.  Since  it  is  impossible  to  tell  before- 

II 


Preliminaries 

hand  just  what  arguments  an  opponent  will  use  and 
what  line  of  attack  he  will  pursue,  the  man  who 
cannot  mass  his  forces  to  meet  the  requirements  of 
the  minute  is  at  great  disadvantage.  Of  course  all 
facts  and  ideas  must  be  mastered  beforehand,  but 
unless  one  is  to  be  the  first  speaker,  he  can  most 
effectually  determine  during  the  progress  of  the 
debate  just  what  arguments  are  preferable  and  what 
their  arrangement  should  be.  A  debater  must  also 
have  some  ability  as  a  speaker.  He  need  not  be 
graceful  or  especially  fluent,  though  these  accom- 
plishments are  of  service,  but  he  must  be  forceful. 
Not  only  his  words,  but  also  his  manner  must  reveal 
the  earnestness  and  enthusiasm  he  feels.  His  argu- 
ment, clear,  irrefutable,  and  to  the  point,  should  go 
forth  in  simple,  burning  words  that  enter  into  the 
hearts  and  understanding  of  his  hearers. 


12 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  SUBJECT 

THE  subject  of  an  argument  must  always  be  a 
complete  statement.  The  reason  for  this  require- 
ment lies  in  the  fact  that  an  argument  can  occur 
only  when  men  have  conflicting  opinions  about  a 
certain  thought,  and  try  to  prove  the  truth  or  falsity 
of  this  definite  idea.  Since  a  term  —  a  word, 
phrase,  or  other  combination  of  words  not  a  com- 
plete sentence  —  suggests  many  ideas,  but  never 
stands  for  one  particular  idea,  it  is  absurd  as  a 
subject  to  be  argued.  A  debatable  subject  is  always 
a  proposition,  a  statement  in  which  something  is 
affirmed  or  denied.  It  would  be  impossible  to  up- 
hold or  attack  the  mere  term,  "  government  railroad 
supervision,"  for  this  expression  carries  with  it  no 
specific  thought.  It  may  suggest  that  government 
railroad  supervision  has  been  inadequate  in  the  past ; 
or  that  government  supervision  is  at  present  un- 
necessary; or  that  the  government  is  about  to  as- 
sume stricter  supervision.  The  term  affords  no 

13 


The  Subject 

common  ground  on  which  the  contestants  would 
have  to  meet.  If,  however,  some  exact  idea  were 
expressed  in  such  a  statement  as,  "  Further  govern- 
ment railroad  supervision  is  necessary  for  the  best 
interests  of  the  United  States,"  an  argument  might 
well  follow. 

Although  the  subject  of  an  argument  must  be 
a  complete  thought,  it  does  not  follow  that  this 
proposition  is  always'explicitly  stated  or  formulated 
in  words.  The  same  distinction  between  subject 
and  title  that  exists  in  other  kinds  of  writing  is 
found  also  in  argumentation ;  the  subject  is  a  state- 
ment of  the  matter  about  which  the  controversy 
centers ;  the  title  is  the  name  by  which  the  composi- 
tion is  known.  Sometimes  the  subject  serves  as 
the  title,  and  sometimes  the  subject  is  left  to  be 
discovered  in  the  body  of  the  work.  The  title 
of  the  speech  delivered  by  Webster  in  the  Senate, 
January  26,  1830,  is  "  Webster's  Reply  to  Hayne  " ; 
the  subject,  in  the  form  of  a  resolution,  is  found 
close  to  the  opening  sentences: — 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands  be  in- 
structed to  inquire  and  report  the  quantity  of  public 
lands  remaining  unsold  within  each  State  and  Territory, 
and  whether  it  be  expedient  to  limit  for  a  certain  period 
the  sales  of  the  public  lands  to  such  lands  only  as  have 

14 


The  Subject 


heretofore  been  offered  for  sale,  and  are  now  subject  to 
entry  at  the  minimum  price.  And,  also,  whether  the  office 
of  Surveyor-General,  and  some  of  the  land  offices,  may 
not  be  abolished  without  detriment  to  the  public  interest; 
or  whether  it  be  expedient  to  adopt  measures  to  hasten 
the  sales  and  extend  more  rapidly  the  surveys  of  the 
public  lands. 

The  thirteen  resolutions  offered  by  Burke  form 
the  subject  of  the  argument  known  by  the  title, 
"  Burke's  Speech  on  Conciliation  with  America." 
A  recent  issue  of  The  Outlook  contained  an  article 
entitled  "  Russian  Despotism  " ;  careful  reading  dis- 
closed that  the  subject  was  this,  "  The  Present  Gov- 
ernment of  Russia  has  no  Right  to  Exist."  In 
legislative  proceedings  the  subject  of  argument  is 
found  in  the  form  of  a  bill,  or  a  motion,  or  a 
resolution ;  in  law  courts  it  is  embodied  in  statements 
called  "  pleadings,"  which  "  set  forth  with  certainty 
and  with  truth  the  matters  of  fact  or  of  law,  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  which  must  be  decided  to  decide 
the  case."  x  In  college  debate  it  is  customary  to 
frame  the  subject  in  the  form  of  a  resolution,  and  to 
use  this  resolution  as  the  title.  The  generally  ac- 
cepted form  is  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  the  United  States  army  should 
be  permanently  enlarged. 

1  Laycock  and  Scales'  Argumentation  and  Debate,  page  14. 
15 


The  Subject 

Notice  the  use  of  italics,  of  punctuation  marks, 
and  of  capital  letters. 

In  all  kinds  of  argumentation,  whether  the  prop- 
osition to  be  discussed  is  clearly  expressed  or  not, 
the  arguer  must  keep  his  subject  constantly  in 
mind,  that  his  efforts  may  all  be  directed  toward 
a  definite  end  in  view  —  to  convince  and  persuade 
his  audience.  In  debate  the  speaker  should  plainly 
state  the  subject,  and  constantly  hold  it  up  to  the 
attention  of  the  audience.  This  procedure  renders 
it  impossible  for  an  opponent  to  ignore  the  question 
and  evade  the  real  issue. 

Only  those  who  are  debating  for  practice  expe- 
rience any  difficulty  in  obtaining  a  subject.  In  the 
business  world  men  argue  because  they  are  con- 
fronted with  some  perplexing  problem,  because 
some  issue  arises  that  demands  discussion;  but  the 
student,  generally  speaking,  chooses  his  own  topic. 
Therefore  a  few  suggestions  in  regard  to  the  choice 
of  a  subject  and  the  wording  of  a  proposition  are 
likely  to  be  of  considerable  service  to  him. 

The  student  should  first  select  some  general,  pop- 
ular topic  of  the  day  in  which  he  is  interested.  He 
should,  for  several  reasons,  not  the  least  of  which 
is  that  he  will  thus  gain  considerable  information 
that  may  be  of  value  to  him  outside  the  class  room, 

16 


The  Subject 

select  a  popular  topic  rather  than  one  that  has  been 
worn  out  or  that  is  comparatively  unknown.  He 
should,  moreover,  choose  an  interesting  topic,  for 
then  his  work  will  be  more  agreeable  and  conse- 
quently of  a  higher  order.  Of  this  general  idea 
he  must  decide  upon  some  specific  phase  which 
readily  lends  itself  to  discussion.  Then  he  has  to 
express  this  specific  idea  in  the  form  of  a  prop- 
osition. As  it  is  not  always  an  easy  matter  to  state 
a  proposition  with  precision  and  fairness,  he  must 
take  this  last  step  very  cautiously.  One  must  al- 
ways exercise  great  care  in  choosing  words  that 
denote  the  exact  meaning  he  wishes  to  convey. 
Many  writers  and  speakers  have  found  themselves 
in  false  positions  just  because,  upon  examination, 
it  was  found  that  their  subjects  did  not  express 
the  precise  meaning  that  was  intended. 

Moreover,  in  phrasing  the  proposition,  the  debater 
should  so  state  the  subject  that  the  affirmative  side, 
the  side  that  opens  the  discussion,  is  the  one  to 
advocate  a  change  in  existing  conditions  or  belief. 
This  method  obviously  corresponds  to  the  way  in 
which  business  is  conducted  in  practical  affairs.  No 
one  has  reason  to  defend  an  established  condition 
until  it  is  first  attacked.  The  law  presumes  a  man 
to  be  innocent  until  he  is  proved  guilty,  and  there- 

2  I7 


The  Subject 

fore  it  is  the  prosecution,  the  side  to  affirm  guilt, 
that  opens  the  case.  The  question  about  govern- 
ment ownership  of  railroads  should  be  so  worded 
that  the  affirmative  side  will  advocate  the  new 
system,  and  the  negative  will  uphold  the  old.  It 
should  be  stated  thus:  "Resolved,  That  all  rail- 
roads in  the  United  States  should  be  owned  and 
operated  by  the  Federal  government."  This  ob- 
ligation of  adducing  evidence  and  reasoning  to 
support  one  side  of  a  proposition  before  an  answer 
from  the  other  side  can  be  demanded,  is  called 
burden  of  proof.  The  "  burden  "  always  rests  upon 
the  side  that  advocates  a  change,  and  the  proposition 
should  be  so  worded  that  the  affirmative  will  have  to 
undertake  this  duty. 

One  more  principle  must  be  observed :  nothing  in 
the  wording  of  the  subject  should  give  one  side  any 
advantage  over  the  other.  Argument  can  exist  only 
when  reasonable  men  have  a  difference  of  opinion. 
If  the  wording  of  the  proposition  removes  this 
difference,  no  discussion  can  ensue.  For  instance, 
the  word  "  undesirable,"  if  allowed  to  stand  in  the 
following  proposition,  precludes  any  debate :  "  Re- 
solved, That  all  colleges  should  abolish  the  un- 
desirable game  of  football." 

From  the  preceding  suggestions  it  is  seen  that 
18 


The  Subject 

the  subject  of  an  argument  is  a  definite,  restricted 
thought  derived  from  some  general  idea.  Whether 
expressed  or  not,  the  subject  must  be  a  proposition, 
not  a  term.  In  debate  the  proposition  is  usually 
framed  in  the  form  of  a  resolution.  This  resolution 
must  always  be  so  worded  that  the  burden  of  proof 
will  rest  upon  the  affirmative  side.  Nothing  in  the 
wording  of  the  proposition  should  give  either  side 
any  advantage  over  the  other.  These  principles 
have  to  do  with  the  manner  of  expression;  subjects 
will  next  be  considered  with  respect  to  the  ideas 
they  contain. 

A  common  and  convenient  method  of  classifica- 
tion divides  propositions  into  two  groups:  proposi- 
tions of  policy,  and  propositions  of  fact.  The  first 
class  consists  of  those  propositions  that  aim  to  prove 
the  truth  of  a  theory,  that  indicate  a  preference  for 
a  certain  policy,  for  a  certain  method  of  action. 
The  second  class  comprises  those  propositions  that 
affirm  or  deny  the  occurrence  of  an  event,  or  the 
existence  of  a  fact.  Propositions  of  policy  usually, 
though  not  always,  contain  the  word  should  or 
ought;  propositions  of  fact  usually  contain  some 
form  of  the  word  to  be.  The  following  illustrations 
will  make  the  distinction  plainer: — 


The  Subject 

• 

Propositions  of  Policy. 

The  United  States  should  adopt  a  system  of 
bounties  and  subsidies  for  the  protection  of  the 
American  merchant  marine. 

State  laws  prohibiting  secular  employment  on 
Sunday  should  be  repealed. 

A  city  furnishes  a  more  desirable  location  for  a 
college  than  the  country. 

The  aggressions  of  England  in  Africa  are  justi- 
fiable. 

Propositions  of  Fact. 
Homer  wrote  the  Iliad. 
Nero  was  guilty  of  burning  Rome. 
Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  murdered  her  husband. 

The  most  convenient  method  of  studying  proposi- 
tions to  see  what  subjects  are  desirable  for  student 
debates  is  to  consider  first  those  propositions  that 
should  be  avoided. 

i.  Propositions  with  only  one  side.  As  ar- 
gumentation presupposes  a  difference  of  opinion 
about  a  certain  subject,  evidently  it  is  impossible 
to  argue  upon  a  subject  on  which  all  are  agreed. 
Sometimes  such  propositions  as,  "Resolved,  That 

20 


The  Subject 

Napoleon  was  a  great  soldier,"  and  "Resolved, 
That  railroads  should  take  every  precaution  to  pro- 
tect the  lives  of  their  passengers,"  are  found  on  the 
programs  of  literary  societies  and  debating  clubs. 
In  such  cases  mere  comment,  not  debate,  can  follow. 
Only  subjects  on  which  reasonable  men  actually  dis- 
agree are  suitable  for  argument. 

2.  Ambiguous  propositions.  If  a  proposition 
is  capable  of  several  interpretations,  those  who 
choose  it  as  a  subject  for  an  argument  are  liable  not 
to  agree  on  what  it  means,  and  one  side  will  debate 
in  accordance  with  one  interpretation,  and  the  other 
side  in  accordance  with  a  totally  different  interpre- 
tation. Thus  the  opponents  will  never  meet  in  con- 
flict except  when  they  explain  their  subject.  For 
example,  in  a  certain  debate  on  the  question,  "Re- 
solved, That  colleges  should  abolish  all  athletic 
sports,"  the  affirmative  held  that  only  interclass  and 
intercollegiate  games  were  involved ;  while  the  nega- 
tive maintained  that  the  term  "  athletic  sports  "  in- 
cluded all  forms  of  athletic  games  participated  in  by 
college  men.  Manifestly  the  debate  hinged  largely 
on  the  definition  of  this  term ;  but  as  there  was  no 
authority  to  settle  just  what  was  meant,  the  debate 
was  a  failure.  It  is  usually  desirable,  and  frequently 
necessary,  to  explain  what  the  subject  means,  for  un- 

21 


The  Subject 

less  it  has  some  meaning  which  both  sides  are  bound 
to  accept,  the  argument  becomes  a  mere  controversy 
over  the  definition  of  words.  Another  ambiguous 
proposition  would  be,  "  Republican  government  in 
the  United  States  is  preferable  to  any  other."  The 
word  "  republican  "  is  open  to  two  legitimate  defini- 
tions, and  since  the  context  does  not  explain  which 
meaning  is  intended,  a  debater  is  at  liberty  to  accept 
either  definition  that  he  wishes.  A  few  alterations 
easily  turn  this  proposition  into  a  debatable  subject, 
"  Government  by  the  Republican  party  in  the  United 
States  is  preferable  to  any  other." 

3.  Too  general  propositions.  It  is  never  wise 
for  a  writer  or  a  speaker  to  choose  a  subject  which 
is  so  general  or  so  abstract  that  he  cannot  handle 
it  with  some  degree  of  completeness  and  facility. 
Not  only  will  such  work  be  difficult  and  distasteful 
to  him,  but  it  will  be  equally  distasteful  and  un- 
interesting to  his  audience.  No  student  can  write 
good  themes  on  such  subjects  as,  "  War,"  "  The 
Power  of  the  Press,"  "Race  Prejudice";  nor  can 
he  argue  well  on  propositions  like,  "  Resolved,  That 
wars  are  justifiable";  "Resolved,  That  the  pen  is 
mightier  than  the  sword  " ;  or  "  Resolved,  That  race 
prejudice  is  justifiable."  These  are  entirely  beyond 
his  scope.  But  he  can  handle  restricted  propositions 

22 


The  Subject 

that  have  to  do  with  one  phase  of  some  concrete, 
tangible  event  or  idea.  "Resolved,  That  Japan 
was  justified  in  waging  war  against  Russia  ";  "Re- 
solved, That  Bacon  wrote  the  plays  commonly 
attributed  to  Shakespeare  " ;  "  Resolved,  That  the 
segregation  of  Japanese  school  children  in  San 
Francisco  is  for  the  best  interests  of  all  concerned," 
are  subjects  that  can  be  argued  with  success. 

4.  Combined  propositions.  It  sometimes  hap- 
pens that  several  heterogeneous  ideas,  each  of  which 
by  itself  would  form  an  excellent  subject  for  argu- 
ment, are  embodied  in  a  single  proposition.  The 
difficulty  of  arguing  on  this  kind  of  subject  is  ap- 
parent. It  is  none  too  easy  to  establish  one  idea 
satisfactorily;  but  when  several  ideas  must  be  up- 
held and  defended,  the  work  is  enormous  and  some- 
times open  to  the  charge  of  inconsistency.  More- 
over, the  principle  of  Unity  demands  that  a 
composition  be  about  a  single  topic.  The  proposi- 
tion, "Resolved,  That  Aaron  Burr  was  guilty  of 
murder  and  should  have  been  put  to  death,"  involves 
two  debatable  subjects,  each  of  which  is  of  sufficient 
importance  to  stand  in  a  proposition  by  itself: 
"Was  Burr  guilty  of  murder?"  and  "Should  a 
murderer  be  punished  by  death  ?  "  The  error  of 
combining  in  a  compound  sentence  several  distinct 

23 


The  Subject 

subjects  for  debate  is  generally  detected  with  ease; 
but  when  the  error  of  combination  exists  in  a  simple 
sentence,  it  is  not  always  so  obvious.  In  the  case 
of  the  subject,  "Resolved,  That  foreign  immigrants 
have  been  unjustly  treated  by  the  United  States," 
there  are,  as  the  same  privileges  have  not  been 
granted  all  immigrants,  several  debatable  questions. 
One  who  attempts  to  argue  on  this  subject  must 
take  into  consideration  the  treatment  that  has  been 
accorded  the  Chinese,  the  English,  the  Germans,  the 
Italians,  the  paupers,  the  well-to-do,  and  others.  In 
one  case  the  laws  may  be  palpably  unfair,  and  in 
another  case,  all  that  can  be  desired. 

When  two  ideas,  however,  are  very  closely  related 
and  are  dependent  upon  each  other  for  interpreta- 
tion and  support,  they  may  and  sometimes  should 
be  combined  in  the  same  proposition.  For  example, 
"  Education  should  be  compulsory  to  the  age  of  six- 
teen," involves  two  main  issues :  "  Education  should 
be  compulsory,"  and  "  The  age  of  sixteen  is  the 
proper  limit."  But  in  this  case  the  one  who  advo- 
cates compulsory  education  is  under  obligation  to 
explain  some  definite  system,  and  this  explanation 
must  include  the  establishing  of  some  limit.  To 
name  this  limit  in  the  proposition  renders  the  ar- 
gument clearer  to  an  audience  and  fairer  to  an 

24 


The  Subject 

opponent.  For  similar  reasons,  the  proposition, 
"  The  Federal  government  should  own  and  operate 
the  railroads  in  the  United  States,"  cannot  be  con- 
demned on  the  ground  that  it  is  a  proposition  with 
more  than  one  main  issue. 

Propositions,  then,  adapted  to  class  room  argu- 
ment, are  those  which  give  rise  to  a  conflict  of 
opinion;  which  contain  a  definite  and  unmistakable 
thought ;  which  are  specific  and  sufficiently  restricted 
to  admit  of  thorough  treatment ;  and  which  contain 
a  single  idea. 

Furthermore,  the  student  will  do  well  to  select 
subjects  that  are  as  nearly  as  possible  like  the 
problems  which  statesmen,  educators,  professional 
and  business  men  meet  in  practical  life.  He  should 
try  to  remove  his  argument  as  far  as  he  can  from 
the  realm  of  pure  academic  exercise,  and  endeavor 
to  gain  some  insight  into  the  issues  that  are  now 
confronting  the  makers  of  modern  civilization.  The 
student  who  takes  this  work  seriously  is  sure  to  gain 
information,  form  opinions,  and  acquire  habits  of 
thought  that  will  be  of  great  practical  value  to  him 
when  he  takes  his  place  as  a  man  among  men. 

EXERCISES 

A.  Narrow   each    of   the    following   terms    into    good, 
debatable  propositions :  — 

25 


The  Subject 


Election  of  Senators;  Chinese  exclusion;  woman  suf- 
frage; temperance;  compulsory  manual  training;  the 
honor  system ;  compulsory  education ;  vivisection ;  reci- 
procity; an  enlarged  army;  the  educational  voting  test; 
strikes ;  bounties  and  subsidies ;  capital  punishment ;  Ham- 
let's insanity;  municipal  government;  permanent  copy- 
right; athletics;  civil  service;  military  training;  Panama 
canal;  jury  system;  foreign  acquisitions;  Monroe  Doc- 
trine; forest  reserves;  protective  tariff. 

B.  Criticise  the   following  propositions: — 

1.  The  existence  and  attributes  of  the  Supreme  Being 
can  be  proved  without  the  aid  of  divine  revelation. 

2.  More  money  is  spent   for  luxuries  than   for  neces- 
sities. 

3.  The  growth  of  large  fortunes  should  be  checked  by 
a  graduated  income  tax  and  an  inheritance  tax. 

4.  The  Monroe  Doctrine  should  receive  the  support  of 
every  American. 

5.  Hard  work  is  the  secret  of  success. 

6.  Law  is  a  better  profession  than  medicine. 

7.  College    football    should    be   abolished    and    lacrosse 
adopted  in  its  place. 

8.  Newspapers   exert   a  powerful  influence   on  modern 
politics. 

9.  The  United  States  postal  system  should  be  under  the 
control  of  the  Federal  government. 

10.  The    shortest    distance    between    two    points    is    a 
straight  line. 

11.  Immigration  is  detrimental  to  the  United  States. 

12.  President  's  foreign  policy  should  be  upheld. 

13.  Canada  should  not  be  annexed  to  the  United  States. 

14.  The  cruel  banishment  of  the  Acadians  was  unjust. 

15.  Beauty  has  practical  uses. 

16.  The  democratic  policy  of  government  would  be  for 
the  best  interests  of  the  Philippines. 

26 


The  Subject 


17.  Dickens'  novels,  which  are  superior  to  Scott's,  ef- 
fected reforms. 

18.  An  unconstitutional  income  tax  should  not  be  levied. 

19.  A  majority  vote  of  a  jury  should  not  convict  or 
acquit. 

20.  Edison  is  a  great  inventor. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  INTRODUCTION  — PERSUASION 

EVERY  complete  argument  consists  of  three  parts : 
introduction,  discussion,  and  conclusion.  Each  of 
these  divisions  has  definite  and  specific  duties  to 
perform.  The  work  of  the  introduction  is  three- 
fold: (i)  to  conciliate  the  audience;  (2)  to  explain 
the  subject;  and  (3)  to  outline  the  discussion.  As 
the  conciliation  of  the  audience  is  accomplished  by 
an  appeal  to  the  emotions  rather  than  to  the  reason, 
it  is  properly  classified  under  persuasion.  Explain- 
ing the  proposition  and  outlining  the  discussion  are 
of  an  expository  nature  and  will  be  discussed  under 
the  head  of  conviction. 

As  has  been  stated  in  a  previous  chapter,  the 
amount  of  persuasion  to  be  used  in  any  piece  of 
argumentative  work  depends  entirely  upon  the  at- 
tending circumstances.  The  subject,  audience, 
author,  occasion,  and  purpose  of  the  effort  must  be 
taken  into  consideration.  But  whether  the  amount 
used  be  great  or  small,  practically  every  argument 

28 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

should  begin  with  conciliation.  The  conciliation  of 
the  audience  —  the  word  audience  is  used  through- 
out this  book  to  designate  both  hearers  and  readers 
—  consists  of  gaining  the  good  will  of  those  to  be 
convinced,  of  arousing  their  interest,  and  of  render- 
ing them  open  to  conviction.  No  argument  can  be 
expected  to  attain  any  considerable  degree  of  suc- 
cess so  long  as  anything  about  its  author,  or  anything 
in  the  subject  itself,  is  peculiarly  disagreeable  to  the 
people  it  is  designed  to  affect.  If  the  ill  will  re- 
mains too  great,  it  is  not  likely  that  the  argument 
will  ever  reach  those  for  whom  it  is  intended,  much 
less  produce  the  desired  result.  In  addressing 
Southern  sympathizers  at  Liverpool,  during  the 
Civil  War,  Beecher  had  to  fight  even  for  a  hearing. 
The  speech  of  an  unpopular  Senator  frequently 
empties  the  Senate  chamber.  Men  of  one  political 
belief  often  refuse  to  read  the  publications  of  the 
opposite  party.  Obviously,  the  first  duty  of  the 
introduction  is  to  gain  the  approval  of  the  audience. 
In  the  next  place,  interest  must  be  aroused.  Active 
dislike  is  less  frequently  encountered  than  indiffer- 
ence. How  many  times  sermons,  lectures,  books 
have  failed  in  their  object  just  because  no  one  took 
any  interest  in  them !  There  was  no  opposition,  no 
hostility ;  every  one  wished  the  cause  well ;  and  yet 

29 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

the  effort  failed  to  meet  with  any  attention  or  re- 
sponse. The  argument  did  not  arouse  interest  — 
and  interest  is  a  prime  cause  of  attention  and  of 
action.  In  the  third  place,  the  conciliatory  part  of 
the  introduction  should  induce  the  audience  to  as- 
sume an  unbiased,  judicial  attitude,  ready  to  decide 
the  question  according  to  the  strength  of  the  proof. 
This  result  is  not  always  easy  of  attainment.  Long- 
standing beliefs,  prejudice,  stubbornness  must  be 
overcome,  and  a  desire  for  the  truth  substituted  for 
everything  else.  All  this  is  frequently  difficult,  but 
unless  an  arguer  can  gain  the  good  will  of  the  people 
addressed,  arouse  their  interest,  and  render  them 
willing  to  be  convinced,  no  amount  of  reasoning  is 
likely  to  produce  much  effect. 

Now  the  question  arises,  How  is  it  possible  to 
conciliate  the  audience?  To  this  query  there  is  no 
answer  that  will  positively  guarantee  success.  The 
arguer  must  always  study  his  audience  and  suit  his 
discourse  to  the  occasion.  What  means  success  in 
one  instance  may  bring  failure  in  another.  The 
secret  of  the  whole  matter  is  adaptability.  Humor, 
gravity,  pathos,  even  defiance  may  at  times  be  used . 
to  advantage.  It  is  not  always  possible,  however, 
for  the  orator  or  writer  to  know  beforehand  just 
the  kind  of  people  he  is  to  address.  In  this  case 

30 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

it  is  usually  best  for  him  to  follow  out  a  few  well 
established  principles  that  most  arguers  have  found 
to  be  of  benefit. 

Modesty.  Modesty  in  word  and  action  is  in- 
dispensable to  one  who  would  gain  the  friendship  of 
his  audience.  Anything  that  savors  of  egotism  at 
once  creates  a  feeling  of  enmity.  No  one  can  en- 
dure another's  consciousness  of  superiority  even 
though  the  superiority  be  real.  An  appearance  of 
haughtiness,  self-esteem,  condescension,  intolerance 
of  inferiors,  or  a  desire  for  personal  glory  will  at 
once  raise  barriers  of  dislike.  On  the  other  hand, 
modesty  should  never  be  carried  so  far  as  to  become 
affectation ;  that  attitude  is  equally  despicable.  Per- 
sonal unobtrusiveness  should  exist  without  being 
conspicuous.  The  arguer  should  always  take  the\ 
attitude  that  the  cause  he  is  upholding  is  greater  1 
than  its  advocate. 

In  the  following  quotations,  compare  the  over- 
bearing arrogance  of  Burke's  introduction  with  the 
simple  modesty  of  Proctor's: — 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  under  some  embarrassment  occa- 
sioned by  a  feeling  of  delicacy  toward  one-half  of  the 
house,  and  of  sovereign  contempt  for  the  other  half.1 

Mr.  President,  more  importance  seems  to  be  attached 
by  others  to  my  recent  visit  to  Cuba  than  I  had  given  it, 

1  Edmund  Burke,  House  of  Commons,  March  22,  1775. 
31 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

and  it  has  been  suggested  that  I  make  a  public  statement 
of  what  I  saw  and  how  the  situation  impressed  me. 
This  I  do  on  account  of  the  public  interest  in  all  that 
concerns  Cuba,  and  to  correct  some  inaccuracies  that 
have,  not  unnaturally,  appeared  in  reported  interviews 
with  me.1 

Fairness.  Few  things  will  assist  an  arguer  more 
in  securing  a  respectful  hearing  from  those  who  do 
not  agree  with  him,  but  whom  he  would  convince, 
than  the  quality  of  fairness.  The  arguer  should 
take  the  position  of  one  seeking  the  truth  regardless 
of  what  it  may  be.  If  he  wishes  others  to  look  at 
the  question  from  his  standpoint,  he  will  have  to 
show  that  he  is  willing  to  consider  the  question  from 
their  point  of  view.  Everything  in  the  shape  of 
prejudice,  everything  which  would  tend  to  indicate 
that  he  had  formed  conclusions  prior  to  his  investi- 
gation, he  must  carefully  avoid. 

In  this  connection  consider  the  following: — 

I  very  much  regret  that  it  should  have  been  thought 
necessary  to  suggest  to  you  that  I  am  brought  here  to 
"hurry  you  against  the  law  and  beyond  the  evidence."  I 
hope  I  have  too  much  regard  for  justice,  and  too  much 
respect  for  my  own  character,  to  attempt  either;  and 
were  I  to  make  such  attempt,  I  am  sure  that  in  this 
court  nothing  can  be  carried  against  the  law,  and  that 
gentlemen,  intelligent  and  just  as  you  are,  are  not,  by 
any  power,  to  be  hurried  beyond  the  evidence.  Though  I 

*Redfield  Proctor,  United  States  Senate,  March  17,   1898. 
32 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

could  well  have  wished  to  shun  this  occasion,  I  have  not 
felt  at  liberty  to  withhold  my  professional  assistance, 
when  it  is  supposed  that  I  may  be  in  some  degree  useful 
in  investigating  and  discovering  the  truth  respecting  this 
most  extraordinary  murder.  It  has  seemed  to  be  a  duty 
incumbent  on  me,  as  on  every  other  citizen,  to  do  my 
best  and  my  utmost  to  bring  to  light  the  perpetrators  of 
this  crime.  Against  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  as  an  in- 
dividual, I  cannot  have  the  slightest  prejudice.  I  would 
not  do  him  the  smallest  injury  or  injustice.  But  I  do 
not  affect  to  be  indifferent  to  the  discovery  and  the 
punishment  of  this  deep  guilt.  I  cheerfully  share  in  the 
opprobrium,  how  great  so  ever  it  may  be,  which  is  cast 
on  those  who  feel  and  manifest  an  anxious  concern  that 
all  who  had  a  part  in  planning,  or  a  hand  in  executing, 
this  deed  of  midnight  assassination,  may  be  brought  to 
answer  for  their  enormous  crime  at  the  bar  of  public 
justice.1 

Sincerity.  Another  quality  of  paramount  im- 
portance to  the  arguer  is  sincerity.  This  he  must 
really  possess  if  he  is  to  be  eminently  successful. 
To  feign  it  is  almost  impossible;  some  word  or  ex- 
pression, some  gesture  or  inflection  of  the  voice, 
the  very  attitude  of  the  insincere  arguer  will  betray 
his  real  feelings.  If  he  tries  to  arouse  an  emotion 
that  he  himself  does  not  feel,  his  affectation  will  be 
apparent  and  his  effort  a  failure.  There  are  few 
things  that  an  audience  resents  more  than  being 
tricked  into  an  expression  of  feeling.  If  they  even 

*The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  VI,  p.  51-     Little,  Brown 
&  Co.,  Boston,  1857. 

3  33 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

mistrust  that  a  speaker  is  trying  to  deceive  them, 
that  he  is  arguing  merely  for  personal  gain  or  repu- 
tation and  has  no  other  interest  in  the  case,  no  de- 
sire to  establish  the  truth,  they  will  not  only  with- 
hold their  confidence,  but  will  also  become  preju- 
diced against  him.  It  is  usually  inviting  disaster  to 
champion  a  cause  in  which  one  is  not  interested 
heart  and  soul.  Of  course  in  class  room  work  the 
student  cannot  always  avoid  taking  a  false  position, 
and  the  training  he  receives  thereby  is  excellent,  but 
he  cannot  make  his  persuasion  of  the  highest  type 
of  effectiveness  unless  he  honestly  and  sincerely  be- 
lieves what  he  says,  and  feels  the  emotions  he  would 
arouse. 

An  appeal  to  some  emotion.  One  of  the 
strongest  forms  of  conciliation  is  the  direct  appeal 
to  a  dominant  emotion.  If  an  arguer  can  find  some 
common  ground  on  which  to  meet  his  audience, 
some  emotion  by  which  they  may  be  moved,  he  can 
usually  obtain  a  personal  hold  that  will  overcome 
hostility  and  lack  of  interest.  In  deciding  what 
emotion  to  arouse,  he  must  make  as  careful  and 
thorough  a  study  of  his  audience  as  he  can.  In 
general,  the  use  of  conviction  need  vary  but  little 
to  produce  the  same  results  on  different  men ;  proc- 
esses of  pure  reasoning  are  essentially  the  same 

34 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

the  world  around.  But  with  persuasion  the  case 
is  different;  emotions  are  varied,  and  in  each  sepa- 
rate instance  the  arguer  must  carefully  consider 
the  ruling  passions  and  ideals  of  his  audience.  The 
hopes  and  aspirations  of  a  gang  of  ignorant  miners 
would  differ  widely  from  the  desires  of  an  assembly 
of  college  students,  or  of  a  coterie  of  metropolitan 
capitalists.  Education,  wealth,  social  standing,  pol- 
itics, religion,  race,  nationality,  every  motive  that 
is  likely  to  have  weight  with  the  audience  should  be 
taken  into  consideration.  Remembering  that  he  has 
to  choose  between  such  diverse  emotions  as  am- 
bition, fear,  hatred,  love,  patriotism,  sense  of  duty, 
honor,  justice,  self-interest,  pleasure,  and  revenge, 
the  arguer  must  make  his  selection  with  the  greatest 
care,  and  then  drive  home  the  appeal  with  all  the 
force  and  eloquence  at  his  command.  The  higher 
and  nobler  the  emotion  he  can  arouse,  the  greater 
and  more  permanent  will  be  the  result.  If  the 
audience  is  such  that  he  can  successfully  arouse  no 
higher  feeling  than  that  of  self-interest  or  revenge, 
he  will,  of  necessity,  have  to  appeal  to  these  motives ; 
but  whenever  he  can,  he  should  appeal  to  the  noblest 
sentiments  of  mankind. 

A  famous  illustration  of  the  effectiveness  of  this 
sort  of  conciliation  is  found  in  Wendell  Phillips' 

35 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

oration  entitled  The  Murder  of  Lovejoy.  By  ap- 
pealing to  their  reverence  for  the  past,  he  silenced 
the  mob  that  had  come  to  break  up  the  meeting,  and 
in  the  end  he  won  over  the  house  that  had  been 
packed  against  him. 

We  have  met  for  the  freest  discussion  of  these  resolu- 
tions, and  the  events  which  gave  rise  to  them.  I  hope  I 
shall  be  permitted  to  express  my  surprise  at  the  senti- 
ments of  the  last  speaker,  surprise  not  only  at  such  senti- 
ments from  such  a  man,  but  at  the  applause  they  have  re- 
ceived within  these  walls.  A  comparison  has  been  drawn 
between  the  events  of  the  Revolution  and  the  tragedy  at 
Alton.  We  have  heard  it  asserted  here,  in  Faneuil  Hall, 
that  Great  Britain  had  a  right  to  tax  the  colonies,  and 
we  have  heard  the  mob  at  Alton,  the  drunken  murderers 
of  Lovejoy,  compared  to  those  patriot  fathers  who  threw 
the  tea  overboard!  Fellow  citizens,  is  this  Faneuil  Hall 
doctrine?  .  .  .  Sir,  when  I  heard  the  gentleman  lay 
down  principles  which  place  the  murderers  of  Alton  side 
by  side  with  Otis  and  Hancock,  with  Quincy  and  Adams, 
I  thought  those  pictured  lips  (pointing  to  the  portraits  in 
the  Hall)  would  have  broken  into  voice  to  rebuke  the 
recreant  American  — the  slanderer  of  the  dead.  The  gen- 
tleman said  that  he  should  sink  into  insignificance  if  he 
dared  to  gainsay  the  principles  of  these  resolutions.  Sir, 
for  the  sentiments  he  has  uttered,  on  soil  consecrated  by 
the  prayers  of  Puritans  and  the  blood  of  patriots,  the  earth 
should  have  yawned  and  swallowed  him  up.1 

Specific  directions  for  arousing  the  emotions  are 
hard  to  give.  The  appeal  must  suit  both  the  audi- 

1  American  Orations,   Vol.   II,  page   102.    G.  P.  Putnam's   Sons. 

36 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

ence  and  the  occasion,  and  until  these  are  known, 
suggestions  are  not  particularly  helpful.  When  no 
better  plan  for  conciliating  an  audience  seems  prac- 
ticable, speakers  and  writers  try  to  arouse  interest  in 
the  discussion.  There  are  several  convenient  meth- 
ods for  accomplishing  this  result. 

i.  Importance  of  the  subject.  One  of  the  com- 
monest methods  of  arousing  interest  in  an  audience 
apathetic  and  indifferent  is  to  impress  upon  them 
the  importance  and  gravity  of  the  question  at  issue. 
Matters  thought  to  be  trival  are  apt  to  receive  scant 
attention.  This  fact  is  so  universally  recognized 
that  many  writers  and  speakers  attempt  at  the  very 
outset  to  show  that  upon  the  correct  solution  of  the 
problem  at  hand  depend  serious  and  far-reaching 
results.  It  is  seldom  enough  merely  to  state  that  a 
subject  is  important ;  its  seriousness  should  be  made 
apparent.  This  method  is  very  popular.  When- 
ever one  feels  it  necessary  to  open  an  argument 
with  persuasion,  but  is  at  loss  to  know  how  to  do  so, 
he  may  well  resort  to  this  device.  While  it  does 
not,  perhaps,  constitute  the  strongest  possible  ap- 
peal, yet  it  is  eminently  serviceable,  since,  if  handled 
properly,  it  does  arouse  interest,  and,  moreover,  it 
applies  to  many  cases. 

37 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

Several  examples  will  show  how  this  method  is 
commonly  used: — 

Mr.  President,  the  question  now  about  to  be  discussed 
by  this  body  is  in  my  judgment  the  most  important  that 
has  attracted  the  attention  of  Congress  or  the  country 
since  the  formation  of  the  Constitution.  It  affects  every 
interest,  great  and  small,  from  the  slightest  concern  of 
the  individual  to  the  largest  and  most  comprehensive  in- 
terest of  the  nation.1 

No  city  ever  had  such  a  problem  in  passenger  trans- 
portation to  solve,  and  no  city  of  any  pretensions  has 
solved  it  much  worse.  London  is  not  in  the  strict  sense 
a  town,  but  rather  a  "  province  of  houses."  The  county  of 
London,  as  everybody  knows,  is  only  a  part  of  the  Metrop- 
olis. The  four  millions  and  a  half  of  residents  enclosed 
by  the  legal  ring-fence  of  the  County  are  supplemented 
by  two  millions  more  who  live  in  groups  of  suburbs  in- 
cluded within  the  wide  limits  of  "  Greater  London  " ;  while 
even  beyond  that  large  tract  of  southeastern  England,  with 
its  six  millions  and  a  half  of  inhabitants,  are  many  towns 
and  villages,  populous  and  increasing,  which  are  con- 
cerned with  the  question  of  Metropolitan  locomotion.2 

2.  Timeliness  of  the  subject.  To  show  that  a 
subject  is  timely  is  another  effective  device  for 
arousing  interest.  As  most  people  wish  to  keep 
pace  with  the  times  and  face  the  issues  of  the  day,  it 
is  natural  and  forceful  to  introduce  an  argument 
by  showing  that  the  subject  is  being  discussed  else- 
where, or  by  showing  how  an  event  or  sequence  of 

*J.    P.   Jones,    United    States   Senate,   May   12,    1890. 
2  The  Fortnightly  Review,  Jan.  i,   1902. 

38 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

events  places  the  problem  before  the  public.  The 
arguer  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  question 
does  not  belong  to  the  past  or  to  the  distant  future, 
but  is  of  immediate  interest  and  must  be  settled  at 
once. 

As  the  day  of  the  Cuban  Convention  for  the  framing 
and  adoption  of  a  constitution  approaches,  the  question 
of  Cuban  independence  assumes  greater,  and  still  greater, 
proportions,  and  the  eyes  of  the  American  people  are  be- 
ginning to  turn  anxiously  toward  the  Pearl  of  the  An- 
tilles. By  the  time  this  article  appears  in  print,  delegates 
to  the  convention  will  have  been  elected,  and  interest  in  the 
convention  itself  will  have  become  widespread.  The  task 
I  have  set  before  me  is  briefly  to  review  the  situation,  and 
to  discuss  the  probable  results  to  be  expected  from  a  num- 
ber of  causes,  remote  as  well  as  proximate.1 

The  recent  objection  made  in  Germany  that  American 
prestige  might  suffer  should  there  be  diminution  in  our 
Berlin  Embassy's  social  brilliancy  has  stirred  Congress 
from  apathy  regarding  American  representatives  abroad. 
Congressmen  are  coming  to  realize  that  brains,  not  money, 
ought  to  form  the  first  passport  to  a  candidate's  favor, 
agreeable  adjunct  as  the  money  may  be.2 

3.  Appeal  for  one's  self.  The  safest  method  of 
stirring  the  emotions  is  to  make  an  appeal  in  behalf 
of  the  subject,  but  occasionally  a  writer  or  speaker 
who  is  truly  sincere,  who  is  contending  against  un- 
fortunate circumstances,  and  is  not  seeking  personal 

1  Charles   Warren   Currier.     The   Forum,    October,    1900. 

2  The  Outlook,   April   18,    1908,  p.    844. 

39 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

aggrandizement,  may  arouse  interest  by  making  an 
appeal  on  his  own  behalf.  He  may  present  some 
personal  reason  why  the  audience  should  be  inter- 
ested and  give  him  a  respectful  hearing;  he  calls  at- 
tention not  primarily  to  his  subject,  but  to  his  con- 
nection with  it,  or  to  some  circumstance  in  his  own 
life.  This  method  is  hedged  about  with  several  pit- 
falls :  it  may  expose  one  to  the  charge  of  egotism,  of 
insincerity,  or  of  false  modesty ;  and  it  may  draw  the 
attention  of  the  audience  away  from  the  matter  in 
hand.  To  use  this  method  successfully  one  should 
possess  consummate  tact  and  thorough  knowledge 
of  human  nature. 

The  following  opening  of  a  speech  by  Abraham 
Lincoln  at  Columbus,  Ohio,  shows  how  he  used  this 
device  to  gain  the  sympathy  of  the  audience: — 

Fellow-citizens  of  the  State  of  Ohio:  I  cannot  fail  to 
remember  that  I  appear  for  the  first  time  before  an  au- 
dience in  this  now  great  State, —  an  audience  that  is  ac- 
customed to  hear  such  speakers  as  Corwin,  and  Chase,  and 
Wade,  and  many  other  renowned  men;  and  remembering 
this,  I  feel  that  it  will  be  well  for  you,  as  for  me,  that 
you  should  not  raise  your  expectations  to  that  standard 
to  which  you  would  have  been  justified  in  raising  them 
had  one  of  these  distinguished  men  appeared  before  you. 
You  would  perhaps  be  only  preparing  a  disappointment 
for  yourselves,  and,  as  a  consequence  of  your  disap- 
pointment, mortification  for  me.  I  hope,  therefore,  that 
you  will  commence  with  very  moderate  expectations;  and 

40 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

perhaps,  if  you  will  give  me  your  attention,  I  shall  be  able 
to  interest  you  in  a  moderate  degree.1 

These,  then,  are  the  suggestions  offered  for  con- 
ciliating an  audience :  Be  modest ;  be  fair ;  be  sin- 
cere ;  and  appeal  to  some  strong  emotion.  To  make 
this  Appeal  successfully,  study  your  audience.  In 
case  of  inability  to  arouse  any  stronger  feeling,  ap- 
peal to  the  interest  of  the  people  by  showing  that 
the  subject  is  important,  or  timely,  or  both ;  or  show 
that  you  have  some  personal  claim  upon  the 
audience. 

These  directions  are  far  from  complete.  Any- 
thing like  an  exhaustive  treatment  of  this  subject 
would  in  itself  constitute  a  book.  The  advice  of- 
fered here,  however,  should  be  of  considerable  value 
to  one  who  has  difficulty  in  getting  a  written  ar- 
gument or  a  debate  successfully  launched.  The 
student  should  supplement  this  chapter  with  careful 
study  of  the  work  of  proficient  writers.  If  he  will 
notice  how  they  have  gained  success  in  this  partic- 
ular, and  if  he  will  imitate  them,  he  is  bound  to 
improve  his  own  compositions.  The  principal 
dangers  to  be  avoided  consist  of  going  to  extremes. 
The  conciliatory  part  of  the  introduction  should 
not  be  so  meager  that  it  will  fail  to  accomplish  its 

1  Complete  Works  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  I,  p.  538.  Nicolay 
&  Hay.  Century  Company. 

41 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

purpose,  nor  should  it  be  so  elaborate  and  artificial 
as  to  hamper  the  onward  movement  of  the  argu- 
ment. The  important  thing  is  to  gain  the  good  will 
and  the  attention  of  the  audience,  and,  other  things 
being  equal,  the  shorter  the  introduction  the  better. 
Further  directions  for  the  spoken  argument  may  be 
found  in  the  chapter  entitled  Debate. 

EXERCISES 

A.  Criticise  the  following  introductory  passages  for  per- 
suasiveness, pointing  out  specifically  the  methods  of  con- 
ciliation used,  and  any  defects  that  may  be  found: — 

1.  The  building  of  the  Panama  Canal  is  a  topic  of  inter- 
est and  importance  to  every  American.     Not  only  do  we 
wish  to  see  our  country  build  the  canal  successfully,  but 
we  also  desire  to  see  built  the  best  canal  that  the  world 
has   ever   known.     There   is   no   doubt   that   the  canal   is 
necessary;  the  great  loss  of  time  and  money,  the  annual 
sacrifice  of  ships  and  lives  involved  in  the  passage  around* 
the  "Horn,"  not  to  mention  the  expense  and  congestion 
of    the    railroad    freight    systems    across    the    continent, 
plainly  show  the  need  of  quicker  ship  communication  be- 
tween the  two  oceans. 

2.  I  stand  here  to  raise  the  last  voice  that  ever  can  be 
heard  this  side  the  judgment  seat  of  God  in  behalf  of 
the  personal  honor  and  judicial  integrity  of  this  respondent. 
I  fully  realize  the  responsibilities  of  my  position,  and  I 
shall  endeavor  to  meet  them  as  best  I  can.     I  also  realize 
as  deeply  as  any  other  man  can  how  important  it  is  not 
only  to  my  client  but  to  every  American  man,  woman,  and 
child  that  justice  shall  be  done  and  true  deliverance  made. 

3.  The  opening  of  the  racing  season  in  New  York,  at 
the  Aqueduct  track  on  Long  Island,  gives  a  fresh  oppor- 

42 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

tunity  for  observation  of  the  conditions  under  which 
horse-racing,  and  more  especially  gambling  on  horse  races, 
is  carried  on.  The  announcement  of  the  racing  managers 
that  certain  "  reforms  "  had  been  inaugurated  in  the  con- 
trol of  the  gambling  makes  the  opportunity  of  especial 
interest. 

4.  I  approach  the  discussion  of  this  bill  and  the  kin- 
dred bills  and  amendments  pending  in  the  two   Houses 
with  unaffected  diffidence.     No  problem  is  submitted  to  us 
of  equal  importance  and  difficulty.    Our  action  will  affect 
the  value   of   all   the   property   of   all   the  people   of   the 
United  States,  and  the  wages  of  labor  of  every  kind,  and 
our  trade  and  commerce  with  all  the  world.     In  the  con- 
sideration of  such  a  question  we  should  not  be  controlled 
by  previous  opinions  or  bound  by  local  interests,  but  with 
the   light   of    experience   and    full   knowledge   of    all   the 
complicated   facts  involved,  give  to  the  subject  the  best 
judgment  which  imperfect  human  nature  allows. 

5.  Each    generation    has    the    power   to    shape   its    own 
destinies;   and   had   Washington   and   his    fellow   patriots 
been  governed  by  warnings  against  a  departure  from  tra- 
ditions, our  present  form  of  government  would  never  have 
been   established,   the   Constitution   would   have   been   re- 
jected by  the  States,  and  untold  evils  would  have  resulted. 
Madison,   when   arguing   for   the   adoption   of   the    Con- 
stitution,  met   arguments   very   like   to   those   now   being 
made  in  favor  of  political  isolation. 

6.  As  a  race  they  have  withered  from  the  land.    Their 
arrows  are  broken  and  their  springs  are  dried  up;  their 
cabins  are  in  the  dust.     Their  council  fire  has  long  since 
gone  out  on  the  shore,  and  their  war  cry  is   fast  dying 
out  to  the  untrodden  West.     Slowly  and  sadly  they  climb 
the  mountains   and   read  their  doom  in  the  setting  sun. 
They  are  shrinking  before  the  mighty  tide  which  is  press- 
ing them  away;  they  must  soon  hear  the  roar  of  the  last 
wave,  which  will  settle  over  them   forever.    Ages  hence 

43 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

the  inquisitive  white  man,  as  he  stands  by  some  growing 
city,  will  ponder  on  the  structure  of  their  disturbed  re- 
mains and  wonder  to  what  manner  of  person  they  be- 
longed. They  will  live  only  in  the  songs  and  chronicles 
of  their  exterminators.  Let  these  be  faithful  to  their  rude 
virtues  as  men,  and  pay  due  tribute  to  their  unhappy  fate 
as  a  people. 

7.  (During  the  Civil  War  England  largely  favored  the 
South.  To  counteract  this  feeling  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
spoke  in  many  of  the  principal  cities  in  behalf  of  Northern 
interests.  In  Liverpool  he  met  an  audience  that  was  ex- 
tremely hostile.  The  following  is  the  introduction  to  his 
speech.)  For  more  than  twenty-five  years  I  have  been 
made  perfectly  familiar  with  popular  assemblies  in  all 
parts  of  my  country  except  the  extreme  South.  There 
has  not  been  for  the  whole  of  that  time  a  single  day  of 
my  life  when  it  would  have  been  safe  for  me  to  go  south 
of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  in  my  own  country,  and  all 
for  one  reason:  my  solemn,  earnest,  persistent  testimony 
against  that  which  I  consider  to  be  the  most  atrocious 
thing  under  the  sun  —  the  system  of  American  slavery  in 
a  great  free  republic.  (Cheers.)  I  have  passed  through 
that  early  period  when  right  of  free  speech  was  denied 
me.  Again  and  again  I  have  attempted  to  address  au- 
diences that,  for  no  other  crime  than  that  of  free  speech, 
visited  me  with  all  manner  of  contumelious  epithets;  and 
now  since  I  have  been  in  England,  although  I  have  met 
with  greater  kindness  and  courtesy  on  the  part  of  most 
than  I  deserved,  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  I  perceive  that 
the  Southern  influence  prevails  to  some  extent  in  England. 
(Applause  and  uproar.)  It  is  my  old  acquaintance;  I 
understand  it  perfectly — (laughter) — and  I  have  always 
held  it  to  be  an  unfailing  truth  that  where  a  man  had 
a  cause  that  would  bear  examination  he  was  perfectly 
willing  to  have  it  spoken  about.  (Applause.)  And  when 
in  Manchester  I  saw  those  huge  placards,  "  Who  is  Henry 

44 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

Ward  Beecher?"  (laughter,  cries  of  "Quite  right,"  and 
applause),  and  when  in  Liverpool  I  was  told  that  there 
were  those  blood-red  placards,  purporting  to  say  what 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  has  said,  and  calling  upon  English- 
men to  suppress  free  speech,  I  tell  you  what  I  thought  I 
thought  simply  this,  "I  am  glad  of  it."  (Laughter.) 
Why?  Because  if  they  had  felt  perfectly  secure,  that 
you  are  the  minions  of  the  South  and  the  slaves  of 
slavery,  they  would  have  been  perfectly  still.  (Applause 
and  uproar.)  And,  therefore,  when  I  saw  so  much 
nervous  apprehension  that,  if  I  were  permitted  to  speak  — 
(hisses  and  applause) — when  I  found  they  were  afraid 
to  have  me  speak — (hisses,  laughter,  and  "No,  no!") — 
when  I  found  that  they  considered  my  speaking  damaging 
to  their  cause  —  (applause) — when  I  found  that  they  ap- 
pealed from  facts  and  reasonings  to  mob  law — (applause 
and  uproar) — I  said,  no  man  need  tell  me  what  the 
heart  and  secret  counsel  of  these  men  are.  They  tremble 
and  are  afraid.  (Applause,  laughter,  hisses,  "  No,  no ! " 
and  a  voice,  "New  York  mob.")  Now,  personally,  it  is 
of  very  little  consequence  to  me  whether  I  speak  here 
to-night  or  not.  (Laughter  and  cheers.)  But  one  thing 
is  very  certain,  if  you  do  permit  me  to  speak  here  to- 
night, you  will  hear  very  plain  talking.  (Applause  and 
hisses.)  You  will  not  find  a  man — (interruption) — you 
will  not  find  me  to  be  a  man  that  dared  to  speak  about 
Great  Britain  three  thousand  miles  off,  and  then  is  afraid 
to  speak  to  Great  Britain  when  he  stands  on  her  shores. 
(Immense  applause  and  hisses.)  And  if  I  do  not  mistake 
the  tone  and  temper  of  Englishmen,  they  had  rather  have 
a  man  who  opposes  them  in  a  manly  way — (applause 
from  all  parts  of  the  hall)  —  than  a  sneak  that  agrees 
with  them  in  an  unmanly  way.  (Applause  and  "  Bravo!  ") 
Now,  if  I  can  carry  you  with  me  by  sound  convictions,  I 
shall  be  immensely  glad  (applause)  ;  but  if  I  cannot  carry 
you  with  me  by  facts  and  sound  arguments,  I  do  not  wish 

45 


Persuasion  in  the  Introduction 

you  to  go  with  me  at  all;  and  all  that  I  ask  is  simply 
FAIR  PLAY.  (Applause,  and  a  voice,  "  You  shall  have 
it,  too.") 

Those  of  you  who  are  kind  enough  to  wish  to  favor 
my  speaking, —  and  you  will  observe  that  my  voice  is 
slightly  husky  from  having  spoken  almost  every  night  in 
succession  for  some  time  past, —  those  who  wish  to  hear 
me  will  do  me  the  kindness  simply  to  sit  still;  and  I  and 
my  friends  the  Secessionists  will  make  all  the  noise. 
(Laughter.) 

B.  On  the  affirmative  side  of  the  following  propositions, 
write  conciliatory  introductions,  of  about  two  hundred 
words  each,  suited  to  the  audiences  indicated : — 

AN  AUDIENCE  OF  COLLEGE  STUDENTS. 

1.  All  colleges  should  abolish  hazing. 

2.  Fraternities  tend  to  destroy  college  spirit. 

3.  A  classical  education  is  not  worth  while. 

4.  All  colleges  should  abolish  secret  class  societies. 

5.  Intercollegiate  athletic  contests  are  harmful  to  a  col- 
lege. 

AN  AUDIENCE  OF  WORKINGMEN. 

6.  Strikes  are  barren  of  profitable  results. 

7.  Unions  are  detrimental  to  the  laboring  man. 

8.  The  concentration  of  great  wealth  in  the  hands  of  a 
few  men  benefits  industrial  conditions. 


46 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE  INTRODUCTION  —  CONVICTION 

As  soon  as  the  persuasive  portion  of  an  introduc- 
tion has  rendered  the  audience  friendly,  attentive, 
and  open  to  conviction,  the  process  of  reasoning 
should  begin.  First  of  all,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  arguer 
to  see  that  the  meaning  of  the  proposition  is  perfectly 
clear  both  to  himself  and  to  all  the  people  whom 
he  wishes  to  reach.  If  the  arguer  does  not  thor- 
oughly comprehend  his  subject,  he  is  likely  to  pro- 
duce only  a  jumble  of  facts  and  reasoning,  or  at  best 
he  may  establish  a  totally  different  proposition  from 
the  one  that  confronts  him ;  if  the  audience  fails  to 
understand  just  what  is  being  proved,  they  remain 
uninfluenced.  The  amount  of  explanation  required 
to  show  what  the  proposition  means  varies  accord- 
ing to  the  intelligence  of  the  people  addressed  and 
their  familiarity  with  the  subject. 

DEFINITION. 

To  begin  with,  if  there  are  any  unfamiliar  words 
in  the  proposition,  any  terms  or  expressions  that 

47 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

are  liable  to  be  misunderstood  or  not  comprehended 
instantly,  they  must  be  defined.  At  this  point  the 
arguer  has  to  exercise  considerable  judgment  both 
in  determining  what  words  to  define  and  in  choosing 
a  definition  that  is  accurate  and  clear.  Synonyms 
are  almost  always  untrustworthy  or  as  incompre- 
hensible as  the  original  word,  and  other  dictionary 
definitions  are  usually  framed  either  in  too  technical 
language  to  be  easily  grasped  or  in  too  general  lan- 
guage to  apply  inevitably  to  the  case  at  hand. 

Definition  by  authority.  As  a  rule,  the  very 
best  definitions  that  can  be  used  are  quotations  from 
the  works  of  men  distinguished  for  their  knowledge 
in  the  special  subject  to  which  the  word  to  be  de- 
fined belongs.  The  eminent  economist  defines  eco- 
nomic terms;  the  statesman,  political  terms;  the  jur- 
ist, legal  terms;  the  scientist,  scientific  terms;  the 
theologian,  the  meaning  of  religious  phraseology. 
To  present  these  definitions  accurately,  and  to  be 
sure  of  the  author's  meaning,  one  should  take  the 
quotations  directly  from  the  author's  work  itself.  If, 
however,  this  source  is  not  at  hand,  or  if  time  for 
research  is  lacking,  one  may  often  find  in  legal  and 
economic  dictionaries  and  in  encyclopaedias  the  very 
quotations  that  he  wishes  to  use  in  defining  a  term. 
It  is  always  well,  in  quoting  a  definition,  to  tell 

48 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

who  the  authority  is,  and  in  what  book,  in  what 
volume,  and  on  what  page  the  passage  occurs. 

Another  convenient  way  of  using  definition  by 
authority  is  not  to  quote  the  entire  definition  but  to 
summarize  it.  Frequently  an  authoritative  defini- 
tion is  so  exhaustive  that  it  covers  several  pages  or 
even  chapters  of  a  book.  In  such  a  case  the  arguer 
may  well  condense  the  definition  into  his  own  words, 
not  omitting,  however,  to  name  the  sources  used. 
The  following  example  is  an  excellent  illustration  of 
this  method : — 

The  bearing  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  on  all  these  con- 
tentions and  counter  contentions  is  not  at  once  evident  to 
the  casual  observer.  .  .  .  Of  course  with  changing 
times  its  meaning  has  changed  also,  for  no  one  attempts 
to  declare  it  to  be  as  immutable  as  the  law  of  the  Medes 
and  Persians.  It  is  applied  in  various  ways  to  meet  vary- 
ing conditions.  Nevertheless,  I  may  say  I  believe,  after 
a  perusal  of  the  more  important  works  on  the  subject, 
that  during  the  forescore  years  of  its  existence  two  prin- 
ciples have  steadily  underlain  it:  (i)  that  Europe  shall 
acquire  no  more  territory  for  permanent  occupation  upon 
this  continent;  (2)  that  Europe  shall  affect  the  destinies 
of,  that  is  exert  influence  over,  no  American  state.* 

*  A.  B.  Hart,  Foundations  of  American  Foreign  Policy,  chap. 
VII;  J.  W.  Foster,  A  Century  of  American  Diplomacy,  chap.  XII; 
J.  A.  Kasson,  The  Evolution  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  pages  22 iff.1 

Definition  by  illustration.     Since  the  purpose  of 

1  Nutter,  Hersey  &  Greenough,  Specimens  of  Prose  Composition, 
p.  218. 

4  49 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

each  step  in  the  reasoning  portion  of  the  introduc- 
tion is  to  convey  information  accurately,  quickly, 
and,  above  all  else}  clearly,  a  particularly  good 
method  for  defining  terms  is  by  illustration.  In  us- 
ing this  method,  one  holds  up  to  view  a  concrete  ex- 
ample of  the  special  significance  of  the  word  that  is 
being  explained.  He  shows  how  the  law,  or  custom, 
or  principle,  or  whatever  is  being  expounded  works 
in  actual  practice.  For  example,  if  he  is  advocating 
the.  superiority  of  the  large  college  over  the  small 
college,  he  should  define  each  term  by  giving  specific 
examples  of  large  colleges  and  of  small  colleges. 
The  advantage  of  this  method  lies  in  its  simplicity 
and  clearness,  qualities  which  enable  the  audience 
to  understand  the  discussion  without  much  con- 
scious effort  on  their  part.  Investigation  reveals 
that  the  definitions  of  great  writers  and  speakers  are 
replete  with  illustration.  Whenever  the  student  of 
argumentation  has  something  to  define  that  is  par- 
ticularly intricate  or  hard  to  understand,  he  should 
illustrate  it.  If  he  fails  to  find  already  prepared  an 
illustrative  definition  that  exactly  fits  his  needs,  he 
will  often  do  well  to  learn  just  what  the  term  means, 
and  then  make  his  own  illustration. 

Consider  how  this  method  has  been  used.     The 
50 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

Hon.  Charles  Emory  Smith    defines  reciprocity  as 
follows : — 

Its  principle,  rightly  understood,  is  axiomatic.  Brazil 
grows  coffee  and  makes  no  machinery.  We  make  ma- 
chinery and  grow  no  coffee.  She  needs  the  fabrics  of  our 
forges  and  factories,  and  we  need  the  fruit  of  her  tropical 
soil.  We  agree  to  concessions  for  her  coffee  and  she 
agrees  to  concessions  for  our  machinery.  That  is  reci- 
procity. 

The  following  is  a  definition  of  free  silver  by  The 
Hon.  Edward  O.  Leech,  former  Director  of  the 
Mint  :— 

It  is  important  to  understand  clearly  and  exactly  what 
the  free  coinage  of  silver  under  present  conditions  means. 
It  may  be  defined  as  the  right  of  anyone  to  deposit 
silver  of  any  kind  at  a  mint  of  the  United  States,  and 
have  every  371^4  grains  of  pure  silver  (now  worth  in 
its  uncoined  state  about  52  cents)  stamped,  free  of 
charge,  "  One  Dollar,"  which  dollar  shall  be  a  full  legal 
tender  at  its  face  value  in  the  payment  of  debts  and 
obligations  of  all  kinds,  public  and  private,  in  the  United 
States. 

In  upholding  his  opinion  that  a  majority  of  the 
members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  have  the 
right  to  make  the  rules  governing  parliamentary 
procedure  in  the  House,  The  Hon.  Thomas  B.  Reed 
carefully  defines  the  term  "  rights  " : — 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

It  is  the  fault  of  most  discussions  which  are  decided 
incorrectly  that  they  are  decided  by  the  misuse  of  terms. 
Unfortunately,  words  have  very  little  precision,  and  mean 
one  thing  to  one  man  and  a  different  thing  to  another. 
Words  are  also  used  with  one  meaning  and  quoted  with 
another.  When  men  speak  of  the  rights  of  minorities 
and  claim  for  them  the  sacredness  of  established  law, 
they  are  correct  or  incorrect  according  as  they  interpret 
the  word  "rights." 

A  man  has  a  right  to  an  estate  in  fee  simple,  a  right  to 
land,  and  there  is  no  right  more  indisputable  under  our 
system.  Nothing  but  the  supreme  law  can  take  the  estate 
away,  and  then  only  after  compensation.  The  same  man 
has  a  right  of  passage  over  land  used  as  a  highway,  but 
his  town  or  county  can  take  that  privilege  away  from  him 
without  his  consent  and  without  compensation.  In  both 
cases  the  man  has  rights,  but  the  rights  are  entirely  differ- 
ent, and  the  difference  arises  from  the  nature  of  things. 
It  is  good  for  the  community,  or  at  least  it  has  been 
so  thought,  that  a  man  should  have  unrestricted  right 
over  his  land.  On  it  he  can  build  as  high  as  heaven  or 
dig  as  deep  as  a  probable  hereafter.  This  is  not  because 
it  is  pleasant  for  the  man,  but  because  it  is  best  for  the 
community.  Therefore  his  right  to  build  or  dig  is  limited 
by  the  right  of  eminent  domain  —  the  right  of  the  whole 
people  to  take  his  property  at  any  time  for  the  common 
benefit  on  paying  its  value. 

For  the  same  reason  the  right  of  a  man  to  walk  over 
the  land  of  a  roadway  is  an  inferior  right  which  may 
more  easily  be  taken  from  him;  for  if  it  be  more  con- 
venient for  the  whole  community  that  nobody  should 
walk  over  that  land,  each  man's  right,  which  is  a  perfect 
right  while  it  exists,  is  taken  away  from  him,  and  he 
alone  bears  the  loss. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  multiply  examples  in  order  to 
lay  a  foundation  for  the  assertion  that  the  rights,  so 

52 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

called,  of  any  man  or  set  of  men,  have  their  foundation 
only  in  the  common  good. 


EXPLANATION. 

Not  only  must  the  arguer  define  the  unfamiliar 
words  that  occur  in  the  proposition,  but  he  must 
also  explain  the  meaning  of  the  proposition  taken 
as  a  whole.  Since  an  audience  often  has  neither 
the  inclination  nor  the  opportunity  to  give  a  prop- 
osition careful  thought  and  study,  the  disputant 
himself  must  make  clear  the  matter  in  dispute,  and 
show  exactly  where  the  difference  in  opinion  be- 
tween the  affirmative  and  the  negative  lies.  This 
process  is  of  great  importance;  it  removes  the 
subject  of  dispute  from  the  realm  of  mere  words  — 
words  which  arranged  in  a  formal  statement  are 
to  many  often  incomprehensible  —  and  brings  out 
clearly  the  idea  that  is  to  be  supported  or  con- 
demned. 

To  discover  just  what  the  proposition  means,  the 
arguer  must  weigh  each  word,  carefully  noting  its 
meaning  and  its  significance  in  the  proposition. 
To  neglect  a  single  word  is  disastrous.  An  inter- 
collegiate debate  was  once  lost  because  the  affirma- 
tive side  did  not  take  into  consideration  the  words 
"  present  tendency  "  in  the  proposition,  "  Resolved, 

53 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

That  the  present  tendency  of  labor  unions  is  detri- 
mental to  the  prosperity  of  the  United  States." 
The  negative  side  admitted  everything  that  the 
affirmative  established,  namely,  that  unions  are 
detrimental;  and  won  by  showing  that  their  tend- 
cency  is  beneficial.  In  another  college  debate  on  the 
subject,  "Resolved,  That  the  United  States  should 
immediately  dispose  of  the  Philippines,"  one  side 
failed  to  meet  the  real  point  at  issue  because  it  ig- 
nored the  word  "  immediately."  A  thorough  explan- 
ation of  the  proposition  would  have  shown  the  limita- 
tions that  this  word  imposed  upon  the  discussion. 

In  the  next  place,  the  arguer  should  usually  pre- 
sent to  the  audience  a  brief  history  of  the  matter 
in  dispute.  Many  debatable  subjects  are  of  such 
a  nature  that  the  arguer  himself  cannot,  until  he 
Has  studied  the  history  of  the  proposition,  fully 
understand  what  constitutes  the  clash  in  opinion 
between  the  affirmative  and  the  negative  sides.  To 
understand  the  debate,  the  audience  must  possess 
this  same  information.  A  history  of  the  idea  con- 
tained in  the  proposition  would  be  absolutely 
necessary  to  render  intelligible  such  subjects  as: 
"  The  aggressions  of  England  in  the  Transvaal  are 
justifiable  " ;  "  The  United  States  should  re-establish 

54 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

reciprocity  with  Canada  " ;  "  Football  reform  is  ad- 
visable." 

In  the  last  place,  the  arguer  must  give  his  audi- 
ence all  essential  information  concerning  the  matter 
in  dispute.  For  example,  if  the  proposition  is, 
"  Naturalization  laws  in  the  United  States  should  be 
more  stringent,"  a  mere  definition  of  "  naturaliza- 
tion laws  "  is  not  enough ;  the  disputant  must  tell 
just  what  naturalization  laws  exist  at  the  present 
time,  and  just  how  stringent  they  are  to-day.  Again, 
if  the  subject  is,  "  The  United  States  army  should 
be  enlarged,"  the  arguer  must  tell  exactly  how  large 
the  army  is  now.  If  the  proposition  is,  "  The  right 
of  suffrage  should  be  further  limited  by  an  educa- 
tional test,"  the  arguer  must  state  what  limits  now 
exist,  and  he  must  also  tell  what  is  meant  by  "  an 
educational  test."  In  a  debate  the  work  of  the 
affirmative  and  of  the  negative  differ  slightly  at 
this  point.  Since  the  proposition  reads  an  educa- 
tional test,  the  advocate  for  the  affirmative  has  the 
privilege  of  upholding  any  sort  of  educational  test 
that  he  wishes  to  defend,  provided  only  that  it 
comes  within  the  limits  of  "  an  educational  test." 
He  may  say  that  the  test  should  consist  of  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  alphabet,  or  he  may  advocate  an 

55 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

examination  in  higher  mathematics ;  but  he  is  under 
obligation  to  outline  carefully  and  thoroughly  some 
specific  system.  The  negative,  on  the  other  hand, 
must  be  prepared  to  overthrow  whatever  system 
is  brought  forward.  If  the  affirmative  fails  to  out- 
line any  system,  the  negative  has  only  to  call  atten- 
tion to  this  fact  to  put  the  affirmative  in  a  very 
embarrassing  position. 

The  following  quotations  are  good  illustrations 
of  how  a  proposition  may  be  explained : — 

The  supremely  significant  and  instructive  fact,  in  the 
dealings  of  society  with  crime  in  our  day,  and  one  which 
has  not  been  fully  grasped  as  yet  by  the  legal  profession, 
not  even  by  those  who  practice  in  criminal  courts,  and 
who  should  be  familiar  with  it,  is  this:  We  have  now 
two  classes  of  institutions  fundamentally  distinct  in  char- 
acter and  purpose,  both  of  which  are  designed  by  so- 
ciety, erected  and  conducted  at  public  expense,  for  the 
purpose  of  dealing  with  criminals.  The  most  numerous 
class  of  these  institutions  consists  of  prisons,  in  which  to 
confine  men  for  terms  specified  by  the  trial  courts  as 
penalties  for  their  offenses.  The  laws,  under  which  of- 
fenders are  sentenced  to  these  prisons,  aim  at  classifying 
crimes  according  to  the  degree  of  guilt  they  imply,  and 
assigning  to  each  of  them  the  penalty  which  it  deserves. 
Thus,  to  these  prisons  are  sent  men  sentenced  to  con- 
finement for  two,  five,  ten,  fourteen,  or  thirty  years,  or 
for  life,  according  to  the  name  which  the  law  attaches  to 
the  crime  proved  upon  them;  and  each  man,  when  he  has 
served  the  prescribed  term,  is  turned  loose  upon  society. 
The  other  class  of  institutions  includes  what  are  known 
as  "reformatories."  The  fundamental  principle  here  is 

56 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

that  an  offender  is  sent  to  them  not  for  a  term,  but  for 
a  specified  work.  It  is  assumed  that  his  character  and 
habits  unfit  him  for  social  life.  For  reasons  to  be  found 
in  his  own  nature,  he  cannot  yet  be  trusted  with  freedom 
and  the  responsibilities  of  citizenship.  But  he  may  pos- 
sess the  capacity  to  become  an  honest,  industrious,  and 
useful  citizen.  To  the  reformatory,  then,  he  is  sent  to 
be  educated;  to  be  trained  to  habits  of  industry;  above 
all,  to  be  disciplined  in  the  habit  of  looking  forward  to 
the  future  with  the  consciousness  that  his  welfare  and 
happiness  to-morrow  depend  on  his  conduct  to-day,  and 
that  he  is  constantly  shaping  his  own  destiny.  He  is  ex- 
pected to  remain  until  it  satisfactorily  appears  that  this 
training  is  effective,  and  he  may  then  go  forth  with  a 
prospect  of  leading  an  honest  and  respectable  life.  This, 
in  brief,  is  the  distinction  between  these  two  classes  of 
institutions. 

For  a  generation  past,  these  two  kinds  of  prisons  have 
been  standing  side  by  side  in  New  York,  Massachusetts, 
and  other  States.  Each  of  them  has  received  many  thou- 
sands of  criminals  under  sentence  for  grave  offenses. 
Each  of  them  has  sent  out  thousands  of  inmates  into 
the  world  of  human  society,  with  whatever  impress  the 
life,  teachings,  and  associations  of  the  institutions  could 
make  upon  their  natures,  as  a  preparation  for  their  after 
career.  What  is  the  result?1 

Congress  has  at  last  decided  that  the  long-talked-of 
canal  shall  be  built,  and  shall  be  built  at  Panama.  Those 
issues  no  longer  confront  us.  The  question  now  to  be 
decided  concerns  the  kind  of  canal  that  shall  be  con- 
structed. Two  plans  have  been  suggested:  the  lock-canal 
plan  and  the  sea-level  plan.  The  advocates  of  the  lock- 
canal  plan  aim  to  build  a  gigantic  dam  in  the  valley  of 
the  Chagres  River ;  the  enormous  artificial  lake  thus 
formed  being  used  as  part  of  the  passageway  for  the 

1  Charlton  T.  Lewis,  in  North  American  Review,  August,  1904. 

57 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

vessels.  They  say  that  this  lake  will  be  at  an  elevation 
of  about  eighty-five  feet  above  mean  sea-level ;  the  pas- 
sage to  and  from  it  will  be  made  by  means  of  canals  at 
both  ends,  each  canal  containing  three  locks.  Thus  there 
will  be,  if  this  plan  is  adopted,  six  locks  in  the  entire 
system.  The  canal  will  be  of  sufficient  width  and  depth 
to  accommodate  vessels  of  such  size  as  may  be  expected 
to  be  built  when  the  canal  is  completed. 

If  the  canal  is  built  at  sea-level,  it  will  be  of  the  same 
depth  and  width  as  the  lock-canal,  but  it  will  be  at  the 
level  of  the  sea  throughout  its  entire  length.  Owing  to 
the  fact  that  the  Atlantic  and  the  Pacific  have  a  differ- 
ence in  extreme  level  of  twenty  feet,  an  automatic  tide- 
lock  will  have  to  be  installed.  A  small  lake  will  also  be 
built,  merely  to  divert  the  Chagres  and  to .  furnish  light 
and  power. 

The  question  that  now  confronts  us  is,  "  Which  plan 
should  be  adopted  ?  " 

ISSUES. 

Following  the  discovery  of  the  real  meaning 
of  the  proposition,  comes  the  finding  of  the  issues. 
Whenever  a  man  in  business,  professional,  or 
political  life,  or  in  any  circumstances  whatsoever, 
must  determine  upon  some  policy  or  come  to  some 
decision  regarding  theoretical  or  practical  matters, 
he  formulates  his  belief  and  chooses  his  line  of 
action  in  accordance  with  the  answers  that  he  makes 
to  certain  questions  either  consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously present  in  his  mind.  For  instance,  if  he 
considers  the  purchase  of  a  certain  piece  of  real 

58 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

estate,  he  says  to  himself:  "Is  the  price  fair?" 
"Have  I  the  money  to  invest?"  "Can  I  sell  or 
use  the  property  to  good  advantage  ?  "  "  How  much 
pleasure  shall  I  derive  from  it  ?  "  If  he  answers 
these  questions  in  one  way,  the  purchase  is  likely 
to  be  made;  if  in  another,  it  is  not.  Again,  a 
board  of  college  trustees  may  be  considering  the 
abolishment  of  football.  In  arriving  at  a  decision, 
they  are  confronted  with  these  questions :  "  Is  the 
game  beneficial  or  detrimental  to  the  player  ? " 
"  How  does  it  affect  the  college  as  a  whole  ? " 
Those  who  favor  the  game  will,  of  course,  say  that 
it  is  a  benefit  to  the  player  and  the  whole  college; 
while  those  who  oppose  it  will  maintain  that  it  is  a 
detriment  to  all  concerned.  But  evidently  the  same 
questions  must  be  met  and  answered  by  both  sides. 
These  questions  are  called  issues. 

Issues  are  subdivisions  of  the  subject  under  dis- 
cussion, and  are  always  essentially  the  same  for  any 
given  idea.  The  first  requirement  for  the  issues 
of  any  proposition  is  that  they  be  comprehensive; 
that  is,  the  sum  of  their  ideas  must  equal  the  main 
idea  expressed  in  the  proposition.  To  those  who 
are  carrying  on  the  discussion  and  to  the  audience, 
if  there  be  one,  it  must  be  perfectly  evident  that 
these  questions  cover  the  entire  field  of  controversy ; 

59 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

that  if  these  questions  are  satisfactorily  answered 
in  one  way  or  the  other,  the  discussion  is  settled 
and  nothing  remains  to  be  said.  The  second  re- 
quirement is  that  the  issues  consider  only  disputed 
matter.  A  question  that  gives  rise  to  no  disagree- 
ment, that  admittedly  has  but  one  answer,  is  never 
an  issue.  Issues,  therefore,  may  be  defined  as  the 
questions  that  must  be  answered  by  both  the  affirma- 
tive and  the  negative  sides  of  the  proposition  under 
discussion  and  that,  if  answered  in  one  way,  estab- 
lish the  proposition,  and  if  answered  in  another  way, 
overthrow  it. 

The  issues  of  a  proposition  exist  independently 
of  the  side  that  is  being  upheld.  The  affirmative 
will  find  the  same  issues  as  the  negative,  but  it 
rarely  happens  that  two  men  will  divide  a  proposi- 
tion in  exactly  the  same  manner  and  thus  state  the 
issues  in  precisely  the  same  language.  If,  however, 
the  work  of  both  has  been  fair  and  complete,  their 
issues  will  not  vary  in  any  important  particular. 
For  example,  under  the  subject,  "  The  Federal 
government  should  own  and  operate  the  railroads 
of  the  United  States,"  one  person  might  give  as 
issues : — 

i.  Has  the  government  the  right  to  take  the  roads 
without  the  consent  of  the  present  owners? 

60 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

2.  Is  the  government  financially  able  to  buy  the 
roads  ? 

3.  Does  the  present  system  contain  serious  de- 
fects? 

4.  Will  the  proposed  system  remove  these  defects 
without  bringing  in  new  evils  equally  serious? 

Another  might  state  as  issues: — 

1.  Is  the  proposed  plan  practicable? 

2.  Will  it  benefit  the  people? 

The  issues  in  both  instances,  however,  are 
essentially  the  same,  as  questions  one  and  two  of  the 
first  list  are  equivalent  to  one  of  the  second;  and 
three  and  four  of  the  first,  to  two  of  the  second. 

At  this  point  it  may  be  well  to  mention  a  common 
error  that  must  be  guarded  against.  It  often  hap- 
pens that  a  question  is  stated  as  an  issue  which  is 
not  a  subdivision  of  the  proposition  at  all,  but  is 
the  entire  proposition  itself,  framed  in  slightly 
different  language.  Such  would  be  the  error  if  the 
question,  "  Would  the  change  be  desirable  ?  "  were 
used  as  an  issue  for  the  proposition,  "  All  state 
colleges  should  abolish  military  drill." 

It  sometimes  happens  that  one  is  forced  to  defend 
or  attack  what  has  been  called  a  "  combined  prop- 
osition, a  proposition  that  contains  two  distinct 
subjects  for  argument.  Such  subjects  are  to  be 

61 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

avoided  as  much  as  possible,  but  when  they  must 
be  met,  it  is  usually  necessary  to  have  two  separate 
sets  of  issues.  An  example  of  such  a  proposition 
would  be,  "  All  American  colleges  and  universities 
should  adopt  the  honor  system." 

The  only  practicable  method  of  finding  the  issues 
of  a  proposition  is  to  question  it  from  all  pertinent 
points  of  view,  and  then  to  eliminate  all  questions 
that  have  no  vital  bearing  on  the  subject,  or  that 
are  acknowledged  to  have  but  one  answer.  The 
questions  that  remain  are  the  issues.  In  using  this 
method  of  analysis,  one  must  be  careful  to  consider 
the  proposition  in  all  its  phases  and  details,  and 
from  both  the  affirmative  and  the  negative  sides. 
Neglect  to  give  the  subject  thorough  consideration 
often  results  in  one's  being  suddenly  confronted 
with  an  issue  that  he  has  not  previously  discovered 
and  *  consequently  cannot  meet.  Failure  to  cast 
aside  all  questions  that  are  not  real  issues  may 
cause  equal  embarrassment :  an  arguer  never  wishes 
to  waste  time  and  effort  in  establishing  proof  that 
is  not  essential  to  the  argument,  or  that  is  admitted 
by  the  other  side. 

It  is  hardly  possible  even  to  suggest  all  the  various 
kinds  of  questions  that  may  be  asked  about  de- 
batable subjects.  An  arguer  must  depend  largely 

62 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

upon  his  own  judgment  and  common  sense  in 
analyzing  each  proposition  that  he  meets.  He  may, 
however,  find  the  issues  of  many  propositions  by 
carefully  questioning  them  from  certain  important 
and  comprehensive  points  of  view.  The  list  of 
standpoints  indicated  here  is  not  exhaustive;  only 
the  more  important  and  general  standpoints  are 
considered.  The  student  should  bear  in  mind  that 
the  following  instructions  are  designed  to  teach 
him  a  practical  method  of  analysis ;  they  do  not  con- 
stitute a  formula  that  can  be  applied  in  all  instances. 
First,  the  analysis  of  propositions  of  policy  will  be 
taken  up;  secondly,  the  analysis  of  propositions  of 
fact. 

PROPOSITIONS  OF  POLICY. 

i.  Is  the  plan  practicable?  Whenever  a  plan 
is  proposed,  first  ask  whether  or  not  it  is  practicable. 
If  those  who  oppose  the  idea  can  maintain  that  great 
obstacles  exist  which  will  prevent  the  undertaking 
of  the  project  or  hinder  its  execution,  then  the 
question  of  practicability  constitutes  an  important 
issue.  For  instance,  one  who  contemplates  a 
thorough  argument  on  the  proposition,  "  The  United 
States  navy  should  be  greatly  enlarged,"  must  prove 

63 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

that  the  plan  is,  or  is  not,  practicable.  Plainly,  such 
hindrances  as  enormous  expense,  inadequate  facili- 
ties for  building  and  repairing  battleships,  and  the 
increased  demand  for  officers  and  sailors  render 
questionable  the  expediency  of  such  a  measure. 
This  issue,  however,  is  not  found  in  connection  with 
all  propositions;  it  does  not  concern  propositions 
that  merely  approve  or  condemn  existing  condi- 
tions or  assert  the  occurrence  of  an  event.  For 
example,  practicability  does  not  enter  into  such 
subjects  as  these :  "  Strikes  are  justifiable  " ;  "  The 
present  powers  of  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  are  dangerously  great";  "Ath- 
letics have  been  excessively  developed  in  American 
colleges  and  universities."  But  all  propositions  that 
advocate  a  change,  that  propose  some  new  system 
of  operation,  usually  have  this  issue  involved.  Such 
subjects  are :  "  American  cities  should  own  and 
operate  public  plants  for  the  furnishing  of  light, 
heat,  and  power  " ;  "  Military  drill  should  be  taught 
in  the  public  schools  " ;  "  Porto  Rico  should  be  given 
a  territorial  form  of  government." 

2.  Will  the  proposed  plan  be  a  moral  benefit 
or  detriment  to  those  concerned?  Not  all 
propositions,  by  any  means,  but  many,  are  of  such 
a  character  that  they  must  be  considered  from  the 

64 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

standpoint  of  morality.  The  arguer  must  ask 
whether  the  idea  involved  in  the  subject  is  morally 
right  or  wrong;  whether  it  is  morally  beneficial  or 
harmful.  This  point  of  view  includes  more  than 
at  first  appears.  It  takes  into  consideration 
justice,  duty,  honesty,  faithfulness,  religion,  every- 
thing that  pertains  to  what  is  right  or  wrong. 
Under  the  proposition,  "  The  treatment  of  the 
American  Indians  by  the  United  States  should  be 
condemned,"  appears  the  moral  issue,  "  What  is 
our  duty  toward  the  people  of  this  race?"  The 
proposition,  "  Public  libraries,  museums,  and  art 
galleries  should  be  open  on  Sunday,"  presents  this 
issue,  "  Is  the  method  of  recreation  afforded  by  the 
opening  of  these  buildings  in  accordance  with  the 
teachings  of  the  Christian  religion  ?  "  The  propo- 
sition, "  Football  is  an  undesirable  college  game," 
must  be  settled  in  part  by  the  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion, "  Is  the  game  beneficial  or  harmful  to  the 
player's  character  ?  " 

3.  Will  the  proposed  plan  be  a  material  bene- 
fit or  detriment?  In  the  third  place  the  proposition 
should  be  questioned  from  a  material  point  of  view, 
to  determine  whether  the  plan  is,  or  is  likely  to 
be,  a  benefit  or  a  detriment.  In  some  form  this 
issue  will  doubtless  be  found  in  connection  with  al- 
5  65 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

most  every  proposition  of  policy.  In  all  systems 
of  government,  of  business,  and  even  of  education, 
material  betterment  is  invariably  one  of  the  ultimate 
objects  sought.  The  question  of  national  expan- 
sion presents  the  issue,  "  Will  such  a  course  add  to 
the  glory,  the  prestige,  or  the  wealth  of  the  nation  ?  " 
When  a  boy  considers  going  to  college,  he  desires 
to  know  whether  a  college  education  is  a  valuable 
asset  in  business,  social,  or  professional  life.  An 
issue  which  puts  to  the  touch  the  matter  of  personal 
gain  is  sure  to  involve  a  substantial  portion  of  the 
controversy.  The  arguer  who  can  decisively  settle 
the  question  of  dollars  and  cents  always  has  a  strong 
argument.  Usually  the  issue  involving  the  question 
of  material  benefit  or  detriment  is  plain  and  direct; 
sometimes,  however,  it  is  partially  concealed.  A 
man  debating  on  the  affirmative  side  of  the  propo- 
sition, "Resolved,  That  United  States  Senators 
should  be  elected  by  a  direct  popular  vote  of  the 
people,"  may  urge  as  a  reason  that  such  a  method 
will  result  in  purer  politics.  This  particular  line 
of  argument  he  may  carry  no  farther,  taking  it  for 
granted  that  everyone  will  recognize  the  connection 
between  honest  office  holders  and  material  gain. 

4.  Will  the  proposed  plan  be  an  intellectual 
benefit  or  detriment?    All  propositions  that  deal 

66 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

with  education  or  with  other  matters  that  pertain 
to  man's  progress  and  advancement  should  be 
viewed  from  an  intellectual  standpoint.  No  person 
in  discussing  a  measure  bearing  upon  the  welfare 
of  an  individual,  of  a  community,  or  of  a  nation, 
can  afford  to  neglect  questioning  its  influence  for 
mental  advancement  or  retrogression.  Propositions 
relating  to  schools,  colleges,  and  similar  institutions, 
and  propositions  dealing  with  social  and  industrial 
conditions  present  this  issue.  Modern  theories  of 
government,  both  municipal  and  national,  are  fre- 
quently based  to  some  extent  upon  the  idea  of 
teaching  the  people  how  to  live  and  how  to  govern 
themselves.  The  policy  of  the  United  States  in 
the  Philippines  and  in  the  West  Indies  has  been 
greatly  influenced  by  the  query,  "  How  will  it  affect 
the  intellectual  welfare  of  the  people  concerned  ?  " 
5.  Will  the  proposed  plan  be  a  physical 
benefit  or  detriment?  All  subjects  that  concern 
the  life,  health,  strength,  or  in  any  way  bear  upon 
the  physical  well-being  of  man  present  this  issue. 
An  argument  on  government  ownership  of  railroads 
would  have  to  answer  the  question,  "  Under  which 
system  will  fewer  accidents  occur  ? "  All  such 
propositions  as,  "  Eight  hours  ought  legally  to  con- 
stitute a  working  day  " ;  "  State  boards  of  health 

67 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

should  compel  all  persons  afflicted  with  contagious 
diseases  to  be  quarantined  " ;  "  Football  is  an  un- 
desirable college  game,"  give  rise  to  the  issue  of 
physical  welfare. 

6.  Will    the    proposed    plan    be    a    political 
benefit  or  detriment?     If  a  plan  is  of  such  far- 
reaching  significance  that  its  adoption  or  rejection 
would  affect  a  whole  town,  state,  or  nation,  then 
its  merits  usually  depend  to  some  extent  upon  its 
political   significance.     The  issue   may   take   some 
such  form  as,  "  How  will  the  system  affect  the 
country  politically  ?  "     "  Will  the  system  encourage 
bribery  and  graft,  or  will  it  tend  to  do  away  with 
these  evils  ?  "    "  What  will  be  its  effect  upon  boss- 
ism?" 

7.  How  has  the  plan  succeeded  where  it  has 
been  tried?    This  question  frequently   occurs  as 
an  issue  in  connection  with  all  sorts  of  propositions. 
Its  importance  and  significance  are  so  evident  that 
no  explanation  is  needed.    The  value  of  precedent  is 
known  to  every  one. 

8.  Does  the  present   system  contain  serious 
evils?    The  asking  of  this  question  is  frequently 
one  of  the  very  best  ways  to  get  at  the  heart  of  a 
proposition  of  policy.    To  be  sure,  this  question 
overlaps  and  embraces  several  other  questions  that 

68 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

have  been  suggested,  but  a  comprehensive  issue  like 
this  is  sometimes  preferable  from  the  standpoint 
both  of  the  arguer  and  of  the  audience.  It  removes 
from  the  arguer  the  necessity  of  classifying  each 
evil  under  the  head  of  moral,  financial,  intellectual, 
etc.;  and  in  many  cases  it  results  in  an  argument 
more  easily  understood  by  the  audience.  In  some 
form  this  issue  applies  to  nearly  all  political,  eco- 
nomic, and  financial  propositions. 

9.  If  the  present  system  does  contain  serious 
evils,  will  the  proposed  system  remove  them? 
Equal  in  importance  with  the  question  as  to  whether 
the  existing  system  is  defective,  is  the  question  as 
to  whether  the  proposed  system  will  remove  these 
defects,    without,    of    course,    introducing   equally 
great  disadvantages.     These  two  issues  almost  in- 
variably go  together ;  they  set  the  system  advocated 
by  the  affirmative  and  the  system  advocated  by  the 
negative  side  by  side,  and  compare  and  contrast 
each  with  the  other. 

10.  If  the  present  system  contains  serious  evils, 
is  the  proposed  system  the  only  remedy?    This 
last  question  is  very  closely  connected  with  the  two 
preceding   questions.    The  whole   discussion   may 
hinge  not  on  whether  evils  exist,  but  on  how  they 
shall  be  remedied.    If  the  argument  takes  this  turn, 

69 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

the  advocates  of  a  certain  system  must  show  that 
their  plan  is  the  only  one  suitable  for  adoption,  or, 
at  least,  is  the  best  plan,  while  the  negative  must 
introduce  and  uphold  a  totally  different  scheme. 
For  instance,  under  the  proposition,  "  The  United 
States  army  should  be  greatly  enlarged,"  the  first 
two  issues  would  probably  be  these :  "  Is  the  pres- 
ent army  adequate  to  protect  the  nation  ?  "  and  "  Is 
the  enlargement  of  the  army  the  only  means  of 
rendering  the  nation  safe  from  invasion  ?  " 

PROPOSITIONS  OF  FACT. 

i.  Does  the  proposition  state  a  possible 
truth?  To  find  the  issues  of  a  proposition  of 
fact,  first  ask  whether  the  occurrence  in  question 
could  have  happened  or  the  condition  alleged  in  the 
proposition  could  possibly  have  existed.  This  ques- 
tion is  so  important  that  if  it  can  conclusively  be 
answered  in  the  negative  the  discussion  is  ended. 
Legal  proceedings  invariably  center  around  some 
form  of  a  proposition  of  fact.  In  the  criminal 
court  a  man  to  prove  his  innocence  has  only  to 
establish  an  alibi  or  prove  physical  inability  to  com- 
mit the  crime  with  which  he  is  charged.  Not  al- 

70 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

ways,  of  course,  does  the  question  of  possibility 
constitute  an  issue,  since  frequently  the  possibility 
is  admitted.  Such  would  be  the  case  if  the  fol- 
lowing propositions  came  up  for  discussion :  "  Joan 
of  Arc  was  burned  at  the  stake  " ;  "  Nero  was  guilty 
of  burning  Rome."  In  these  instances  possibility 
gives  way  to  probability. 

2.  Does  the  proposition  state  a  probable 
truth?  If  the  question  of  possibility  has  been  an- 
swered affirmatively  or  inconclusively,  the  issue  of 
probability  next  arises.  In  connection  with  many 
propositions  of  fact  this  is  the  most  important  issue 
to  be  encountered.  Unless  a  condition  or  an  event 
—  its  possibility  being  admitted  —  can  be  affirmed 
or  denied  by  reliable  witnesses  who  testify  from 
their  own  personal  knowledge  of  the  matter,  the 
most  that  any  arguer  can  do  is  to  establish  a  balance 
of  probability.  Those  who  believe  that  Bacon  wrote 
the  plays  attributed  to  Shakespeare  try  to  show  how 
improbable  it  is  that  a  man  like  Shakespeare  could 
have  produced  such  works,  and  how  very  likely  it  is 
that  Bacon  was  the  real  author.  Many  criminals 
are  convicted  or  acquitted  on  evidence  that  estab- 
lishes merely  a  strong  probability  of  guilt  or  of 
innocence. 

71 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

3.  Is  there  any  direct  evidenc'e  bearing  on 
the  proposition?  In  the  third  place,  a  person  who 
is  trying  to  prove  or  disprove  a  proposition  of  fact 
must  consider  the  direct  evidence  involved.  In- 
direct evidence  tends  to  establish  the  possibility  or 
probability  that  a  statement  is  true  or  false,  while 
direct  evidence  asserts  that  it  is  true  or  false.  Di- 
rect evidence  on  the  question,  "  Country  roads  in 
New  England  are  inferior  to  those  of  the  Middle 
West,"  would  not  be  a  description  of  the  topo- 
graphical and  geographical  features  of  both  regions, 
for  this  information  could  at  its  best  establish  only 
a  strong  probability ;  direct  evidence  on  this  subject 
would  be  the  testimony  of  people  who  have  investi- 
gated the  roads,  and  could  thus  speak  from  direct 
personal  knowledge. 

This  issue  of  direct  evidence  has  two  phases. 
The  arguer  must  ask,  "  Is  any  direct  evidence 
available  ? "  and  "  If  there  is  any,  what  is  its 
value?"  It  is, easily  seen  that  not  all  evidence  is 
equally  reliable.  Both  the  man  and  what  he  says 
must  be  tested :  the  man  for  such  qualities  as  truth- 
fulness, intelligence,  and  experience ;  the  statements 
for  consistency  and  general  credibility.  The  tests 
of  evidence  are  given  in  detail  in  another  chapter. 

72 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

S 
*  TESTS  FOR  ISSUES. 

After  an  arguer  has  secured  his  list  of  issues,  he 
should  test  his  work  by  asking  the  four  following 
questions : — 

1.  Does  each  issue  really  bear  upon  the  proposi- 
tion? 

2.  Is  each  issue  a  subdivision  of  the  proposition, 
or  is  it  the  proposition  itself  formulated  in  different 
language  ? 

3.  Does     each     issue     comprise    only     disputed 
matter  ? 

4.  Do  the  issues,  taken  collectively,  consider  all 
phases  of  the  proposition? 

Several  illustrations  will  show  more  plainly  just 
what  issues  are  and  how  they  are  used  in  connec- 
tion with  other  parts  of  art  introduction. 

Shall  Greek  be  Taught  in  High  Schools? 

In  taking  up  the  discussion  of  Greek  in  the  high  schools, 
I  shall  consider  these  three  questions:  First,  is  Greek 
more  valuable  than  other  studies  in  training  the  mind? 
Second,  does  the  study  of  Greek  acquaint  us  with  the 
best  that  has  been  known  and  said  in  the  world,  and, 
therefore,  with  the  history  of  the  human  spirit?  And 
third,  where  shall  Greek  be  taught?1 

1W.  F.  Webster,  The  Forum,  December,  1899,  page  459. 

73 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 


Does  Colonization  Pay? 

The  points  to  be  considered  in  determining  the  some- 
what mercenary  question,  "Does  Colonization  Pay?"  as 
viewed  with  regard  to  the  interests  of  the  colonizing 
country,  are:  (i)  the  market  that  the  colonies  afford 
for  the  goods  which  the  colonizing  country  has  to  sell; 
and  whether  control  gives  to  the  mother-country  a  larger 
share  of  their  market  than  she  would  have  without  that 
control;  (2)  the  supplies  the  colonies  are  able  to  furnish 
for  use  in  the  mother-country;  and  whether  the  purchase 
of  these  supplies  from  the  colonies  proves  more  advan- 
tageous to  the  mother-country  than  if  they  should  be 
purchased  from  other  parts  of  the  world;  (3)  the  ad- 
vantages, if  any,  which  accrue  to  the  native  population 
of  the  country  controlled.1 

The  following  passage,  taken  from  Daniel  Web- 
ster's speech  in  which,  as  counsel  for  the  city  of 
Boston,  he  argues  that  a  certain  piece  of  land  has 
not  become  a  public  highway,  is  a  good  illustration 
of  an  introduction  on  what  was  virtually  a  proposi- 
tion of  fact.  Notice  with  what  skill  he  cast  aside  all 
irrelevant  matter  and  reduced  the  proposition  to 
clearly  stated  and  indisputable  issues: — 

If  this  street,  or  land,  or  whatever  it  may  be,  has  be- 
come and  now  is  a  public  highway,  it  must  have  become 
so  in  one  of  three  ways,  and  to  these  points  I  particularly 
call  your  honors'  attention. 

1st.  It  must  have  either  become  a  highway  by  having 

XO.  P.  Austin,  The  Forum,   January,   1900,  p.  623. 

74 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

been  regularly  laid  out  according  to  usage  and  law;  or 
2nd.  By  dedication  as  such  by  those  having  the  power 
to  dedicate  it,  and  acceptance  and  adoption  so  far  as  they 
are  required;  or 

3d.  As  a  highway  by  long  user,  without  the  existence 
of  proof  of  any  original  laying  out,  or  dedication. 

It  is  not  pretended  by  any  one  that  the  land  in  question 
is  a  highway,  upon  the  last  of  these  grounds.  I  shall 
therefore  confine  myself  to  the  consideration  of  the  other 
two  questions;  namely,  Was  there  ever  a  formal  and  reg- 
ular laying  out  of  a  street  here?  or  was  there  ever  a 
regular  and  sufficient  dedication  and  acceptance?1 


PARTITION. 

In  college  debate,  though  not  frequently  else- 
where, the  issues  as  a  rule  are  immediately  followed 
by  a  series  of  statements  that  show  how  each  issue 
is  to  be  answered.  These  statements  constitute 
what  is  known  as  the  partition.  When  a  partition  is 
made,  each  statement  becomes  a  main  point  to  be 
established  by  proof  in  the  discussion.  The  follow- 
ing portion  of  a  student's  argument  contains  both 
the  issues  and  the  partition:  — 

In  considering,  then,  whether  colleges  should  adopt  the 
system  of  exempting  from  final  examinations  all  students 
who  have  attained  an  average  daily  grade  of  eighty-five 
per  cent,  or  over,  we  have  only  to  consider  the  effect 
such  a  rule  would  have  upon  the  students,  individually 


Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  VI,  p.   186.     Little,  Brown 
&  Co.,  Boston,   1857. 

75 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

and  collectively.  Would  the  system  raise  or  lower  the 
standard  of  scholarship?  Would  it  assist  or  retard  the 
growth  of  other  qualities  which  a  college  course  should 
develop?  The  negative  will  oppose  the  adoption  of  this 
rule  by  establishing  the  three  following  points : — 

1.  Such   a   system  will   lower   the   scholarship  both   of 
those  who  are  exempted  from  examinations  and  of  those 
who  are  not. 

2.  Such  a  system  will  foster  dishonesty,  jealousy,  and 
conceit. 

3.  Such  a  system  will  deprive  those  who  are  exempted 
from  examinations  of  valuable  discipline  in  preparing  for 
examinations  and  in  taking  the  examinations.1 

There  are  several  forms  in  which  the  partition 
may  be  expressed:  it  may  consist  of  a  single  sen- 
tence that  indicates  how  the  issues  are  to  be 
answered;  it  may  consist  of  the  issues  themselves 
turned  into  declarative  sentences  so  that  they  read 
in  favor  of  the  side  being  upheld;  or  it  may 
answer  each  issue  by  means  of  several  state- 
ments. The  following  will  illustrate  the  several 
methods : — 

Proposition:    Resolved,  That  football  is  an  unde- 
sirable college  game. 
Issues:     i.    Does    football   benefit   or   injure   the 

player  ? 

2.    Does  football  benefit  or  injure  the  col- 
lege as  a  whole? 
76 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

Partition  (negative)  : 
First  method. 

I.    We  will  establish  our  side  of  the  argu- 
ment  by   proving   that   in   each   case 
football  is  a  benefit. 
Second  method. 

1.  Football  benefits  the  player. 

2.  Football  benefits  the  college  as  a  whole. 
Third  method. 

1.  Football  benefits  the  player  physically. 

2.  Football  benefits  the  player  mentally. 

3.  Football  benefits  the  player  morally. 

4.  Football   benefits   the   students   who   do 

not  participate  in  the  game. 

5.  Intercollegiate   football  games  advertise 

the  college. 

The  partition  is  usually  found  in  college  debate 
because  in  a  contest  of  this  sort  absolute  clearness 
is  a  prerequisite  for  success.  As  but  little  interest 
customarily  centers  around  the  subject  itself,  each 
debater  knows  that  if  he  is  to  make  any  impression 
on  the  audience  he  must  so  arrange  his  argument 
that  it  will,  with  a  minimum  amount  of  effort  on 
the  part  of  the  listener,  be  clear  to  every  one.  To 
one  reading  an  argument,  a  partition,  unless  of  the 

77 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

simplest  kind,  will  probably  seem  superfluous;  to 
one  listening  to  a  speech  in  which  he  is  truly  in- 
terested, the  partition  may  seem  labored.  But 
when  the  whole  interest  centers  in  the  method  of 
presentation,  and  in  the  processes  of  reasoning 
rather  than  in  the  subject  matter,  the  partition  does 
increase  the  clearness  of  the  argument,  and  should, 
therefore,  be  used. 

By  way  of  summary,  then,  it  may  be  said  that 
the  work  of  conviction  in  the  introduction  is  to 
show  the  relation  between  the  proposition  and  the 
proof.  The  arguer  accomplishes  this  task,  first,  by 
defining  all  words  the  meaning  of  which  is  not  gen- 
erally comprehended ;  secondly,  by  explaining,  in  the 
light  of  these  definitions,  the  meaning  of  the  prop- 
osition taken  as  a  whole ;  thirdly,  by  discovering  the 
issues  through  a  careful  process  of  analysis;  and 
fourthly,  by  making  a  partition  when  he  is  engaged 
in  debate  and  has  reason  to  think  that  the  audience 
will  not  see  the  connection  between  the  issues  and 
the  discussion. 

HOW  TO  INVESTIGATE  A  SUBJECT. 

A  student  will  hardly  have  reached  this  point  in 
the  study  of  Argumentation  before  finding  it  neces- 

78 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

sary  to  search  for  information  that  will  assist  him 
in  the  construction  of  his  argument.  To  one  un- 
familiar with  a  library,  a  search  after  facts  bearing 
upon  a  given  subject  is  likely  to  prove  tedious. 
For  this  reason  a  few  words  of  advice  concerning 
the  proper  way  in  which  to  use  a  library  may  be  of 
great  help  to  a  beginner.  Nothing,  however,  can 
be  given  here  that  will  even  approximate  the  value 
of  a  few  hours'  instruction  by  the  librarian  of  the 
college  in  which  the  student  is  enrolled.  In  the 
absence  of  such  instruction,  one  can  seldom  do  better 
at  the  outset  than  to  become  familiar  with  indexes  to 
periodical  and  contemporary  literature,  encyclopae- 
dias, government  reports,  and  the  library  catalogue. 
The  best  indexes  are  the  Reader's  Guide,  Poole's 
Index,  The  Annual  Library  Index,  and  the  Current 
Events  Index.  These  give  references  to  all  articles 
published  in  the  principal  magazines  and  newspapers 
for  many  years.  In  these  articles  one  will  find  al- 
most limitless  material  on  nearly  every  popular  topic 
of  the  day  —  political,  economic,  scientific,  social, 
educational.  The  writers,  too,  are  often  of  national 
and  even  of  international  reputation,  and  the  opin- 
ions and  ideas  given  here  are  frequently  as  weighty 
and  progressive  as  can  be  found.  In  searching 
through  an  index  for  articles  upon  a  certain  subject, 

79 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

one  should  invariably  look  under  several  headings. 
For  example,  if  one  is  seeking  material  in  regard  to 
the  abolishment  of  baseball  from  the  list  of  college 
sports,  he  ought  not  to  consult  just  the  one  heading 
baseball;  he  should  in  addition  look  under  athletics, 
college  sports,  and  similar  topics. 

Other  valuable  sources  of  information  are  ency- 
clopaedias. They  often  give  broad  surveys  and  com- 
prehensive digests  that  cannot  readily  be  found 
elsewhere.  Although  they  do  not,  as  a  rule,  discuss 
subjects  that  are  of  mere  local  or  present-day 
interest,  yet  the  thorough  searcher  after  evidence 
will  usually  do  well  to  consult  at  least  several.  A 
fact  worth  bearing  in  mind  is  that  in  connection  with 
these  articles  in  encyclopaedias,  references  are  often 
given  to  books  and  articles  that  treat  the  subject 
very  thoroughly. 

In  the  next  place,  official  publications  frequently 
furnish  invaluable  help  in  regard  to  public  problems. 
Both  state  governments  and  the  national  government 
constantly  publish  reports  containing  statistics,  the 
opinions  of  experts,  and  suggestions  for  economic 
and  political  changes.  Some  of  the  most  valuable 
of  these  documents  for  the  purposes  of  the  arguer 
are  Census,  Immigration,  Education,  and  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  reports,  the  messages  of  the 

80 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

Presidents,  and  the  Congressional  Record.  There 
are  indexes  to  all  these,  and  one  can  easily  find 
out  how  to  use  them. 

Furthermore,  one  should  not  fail  to  consult  the 
library  catalogue.  To  be  sure,  if  the  books  are 
catalogued  only  according  to  titles  and  authors,  one 
will  probably  get  little  assistance  from  this  source 
unless  he  knows  beforehand  what  particular  books 
or  authors  to  search  for.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
books  are  also  catalogued  according  to  the  subjects 
of  which  they  treat,  one  can  see  almost  at  a  glance 
what  books  the  library  has  that  bear  upon  the  matter 
under  investigation. 

EXERCISES 

A.  Define  the  following  terms: — monopoly,  free  trade, 
railway   pooling,    income    tax,    honorary    degree,    tutorial 
system  of  instruction,  industrial  education,  classical  edu- 
cation,  German   university  method   of   study,   vivisection, 
temperance,  Indian  agency  system,  yellow  peril,  graft,  sen- 
sational, mass  play,  monarch,  civilization,  autonomy. 

B.  Criticise  the  issues  that  are  given  for  the  following 
propositions : — 

i.  Resolved,  That  in  the  United  States  naturalization 
laws  should  be  more  stringent. 

a.  Are  the  present  laws  satisfactory? 

b.  Have  the  results  of  the  laws  been  satisfactory? 

c.  Would  a  change  be  wise? 

2  Resolved,  That  in  the  United  States  the  reformatory 
system  of  imprisonment  should  be  substituted  for  the 
punitive. 

6  81 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

a.  Is  the  reformatory  system  practicable  ? 

b.  Does  it  reform  the  criminal? 

c.  What  has  been  its  success  thus  far? 

d.  Is  it  in  accordance  with  modern  civilization? 

3.  Resolved,  That  education  in  the  United  States  should 
be  compulsory  to  the  age  of  sixteen. 

a.  Is  compulsory  education  practicable? 

b.  Will  compulsory  education  benefit  the  child? 

c.  Will  compulsory  education  benefit  the  public? 

4.  Resolved,  That   American  universities   should   admit 
women  on  equal  terms  with  men. 

a.  Is  woman's  education  as  important  as  man's? 

b.  Is  coeducation  a  benefit  to  both  sexes? 

c.  Is  coeducation  a  benefit  to  the  college  ? 

d.  Is    the    desirable    system   of    separate    education 

worth  the  extra  money  it  costs? 

5.  Resolved,  That  in  the  United  States  there  should  be 
an  educational  test  for  voting. 

a.  Is  voting  a  privilege  or  a  natural  right? 

b.  Ought  illiterates  to  be  excluded  from  the  polls? 

c.  Would  the  test  be  unfair  to  any  class  of  citizens  ? 

d.  Could  such  a  test  be  easily  incorporated  into  our 

laws? 

6.  Resolved,  That  vivisection  should  be  prohibited. 

a.  Is  vivisection  of  great  assistance  to  medicine  ? 

b.  Is  vivisection  humane? 

c.  Is  it  right  for  us  as  human  beings  to  sanction  the 

many  forms  of  needless  and  excessive  cruelty 
practised  by  vivisectors  ? 

C.  Make  a  brief  introduction  to  each  of  the  following 
propositions,  defining  all  words  that  require  definition,  ex- 
plaining the  meaning  of  the  proposition,  stating  the  issues, 
and  making  the  partition : — 

1.  All  colleges  should  debar  freshmen  from  participation 
in  intercollegiate  athletic  contests. 

2.  Playing  baseball   with   organizations   not   under   the 

82 


Conviction  in  the  Introduction 

national  agreement  should  not  render  athletes   ineligible 
for  college  teams. 

3.  College  should  adopt  the  honor  system  of  holding 

examinations. 

4.  All  colleges  should  abolish  hazing. 

5.  The  climate  of  our  country  is  changing. 

6.  Macbeth's  wife  was  the  cause  of  his  ruin. 

7.  The  Rhodes  scholarships  for  the  United  States  will 
accomplish  the  objects  of  its  founder. 

8.  National  expositions  are  a  benefit  to  the  country. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  INTRODUCTION  — BRIEF- 
DRAWING 

PRECEDING  chapters  have  dwelt  on  the  essential 
characteristics  of  the  introduction  and  have  shown 
what  it  should  be  like  when  completed.  No  one 
but  an  expert  writer,  however,  can  hope  that  his 
argument,  in  either  introduction,  discussion,  or  con- 
clusion, will  attain  any  considerable  completeness 
and  excellence  without  first  passing  through  a  pre- 
liminary form  known  as  the  brief. 

A  brief  is  a  special  kind  of  outline :  it  is  an  outline/- 
that  sets  forth  in  specific  language  all  the  ideas  to 
be  used  in  that  portion  of  the  argument  known  as 
conviction,  and  that  shows  the  exact  relation  these 
ideas  bear  to  each  other  and  to  the  proposition. 
An  outline  in  narrative,  descriptive,  or  expository 
composition  is  invariably  made  up  of  general  sug- 
gestions, which  seldom  indicate  the  same  ideas  to 
different  persons;  it  is  inexact  and  incomplete.  A 
brief,  on  the  contrary,  fails  in  its  purpose  unless 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

it  conveys  accurate  information.  The  material 
composing  it  is  always  in  the  form  of  complete  sen- 
tences; the  ideas  are  expressed  in  as  exact  and 
specific  language  as  the  writer  is  capable  of  using. 
A  good  brief  means  as  much  to  the  one  who  reads  it 
as  to  the  one  who  draws  it.  It  is,  too,  a  complete 
work  in  itself.  It  does  not  deal  with  persuasion; 
with  this  exception,  however,  it  contains  in  con- 
densed form  all  the  material  to  be  used  in  the 
finished  argument. 

There  are  many  reasons  why  an  arguer  should 
first  cast  his  material  in  the  form  of  a  brief.  To 
begin  with,  this  device  enables  him  to  grasp,  almost 
at  a  glance,  all  the  material  used  for  the  purpose 
of  conviction;  it  keeps  constantly  before  him  the 
points  that  he  must  explain,  and  shows  him  instantly 
just  how  far  he  has  progressed  with  the  proof  of 
each  statement.  Furthermore,  a  brief  renders  the 
arguer  invaluable  assistance  in  preserving  the  fun- 
damental principles  of  composition,  especially  those 
of  Unity,  Coherence,  Proportion,  and  Emphasis. 
It  greatly  simplifies  his  task  of  assorting  material 
and  assigning  each  part  its  proper  place  and  func- 
tion. It  exhibits  so  clearly  every  particle  of  evi- 
dence and  every  process  of  reasoning  employed 
that  it  affords  great  convenience  for  testing  both 

85 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

the  quality  and  the  quantity  of  the  proof.  In  fact, 
a  good  brief  is  so  essential  a  part  of  a  good 
argument  that  a  student  who  neglects  to  draw  the 
first  is  bound  to  meet  failure  in  the  second. 

The  rules  governing  brief-drawing  logically  divide 
themselves  into  four  classes:  those  which  apply  to 
the  brief  as  a  whole  constitute  the  first  class  and  are 
called  General  Rules ;  those  rules  which  apply  to  each 
of  the  main  divisions  of  a  brief  constitute  the  three 
remaining  classes  and  are  called  Rules  for  the  In- 
troduction, Rules  for  the  Discussion,  and  Rules  for 
the  Conclusion. 

GENERAL  RULES. 

In  drawing  a  brief,  the  student  should  first  divide 
his  material  into  three  groups,  corresponding  to  the 
three  divisions  of  the  complete  argument:  the  In- 
troduction, Discussion,  and  Conclusion.  Moreover, 
since  absolute  clearness  in  every  particular  is  the 
prime  requisite  for  a  good  brief,  he  should  label 
each  of  these  parts  with  its  proper  name,  so  that 
there  may  never  be  the  slightest  doubt  or  confusion 
as  to  where  one  part  ends  and  another  begins. 
Hence  the  first  rule  for  brief-drawing  is: — 

Rule  I.  Divide  the  brief  into  three  parts,  and 
86 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

mark  them  respectively,  Introduction,  Discussion, 
and  Conclusion. 

A  brief,  as  has  been  explained,  is  an  outline  that 
contains  all  the  reasoning  to  be  found  in  the  finished 
argument.  Reasoning  processes  are  carried  on,  not 
with  vague  ideas  and  general  suggestions,  but  with 
specific  facts  and  exact  thoughts.  For  this  reason, 
only  complete  statements  are  of  value  in  a  brief. 
Mere  terms  must  be  avoided.  A  statement,  it 
should  be  remembered,  is  a  declarative  sentence; 
a  term  is  a  word  or  any  combination  of  words  other 
than  a  sentence. 

The  following  examples  of  terms  plainly  show 
that  no  reasoning  process  can  exist  without  the  use 
of  complete  statements : — 

Strikes  during  the  past  twenty-five  years. 

Percentage  of  strikes  conducted  by  labor  organi- 
zations. 

Building  trades  and  strikes. 

Since  such  expressions  as  these  give  no  informa- 
tion, they  are  manifestly  out  of  place  in  a  brief. 
Each  term  may  call  to  mind  any  one  of  several 
ideas.  No  one  but  the  author  knows  whether  the 
first  term  is  intended  to  indicate  that  strikes  have 
been  of  frequent  or  of  infrequent  occurrence,  bene- 
ficial or  detrimental.  The  second  term  does  not  in- 

87 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

dicate  whether  the  percentage  of  strikes  conducted 
by  labor  organizations  has  been  great  or  small,  in- 
creasing or  decreasing.  The  third  term  is  equally 
indefinite.  Notice,  however,  that  as  soon  as  these 
terms  are  turned  into  complete  sentences,  they  may 
well  serve  as  explanation  or  as  proof: — 

During  the  twenty-five  year  period  ending  in  1905 
triere  occurred  in  the  United  States  36,757  strikes. 

Labor  organizations  directed  about  two-thirds  of 
these  strikes. 

The  building  trades  have  had  more  strikes  than 
has  any  other  industry. 

This  explanation  gives  rise  to  the  following  rule : — 

Rule  II.  Express  each  idea  in  the  brief  in  the 
form  of  a  complete  statement. 

Moreover,  each  sentence  should  contain  only  one 
idea.  Every  thought  expressed  has  some  specific 
work  to  do,  and  it  can  do  it  far  more  effectively 
if  it  stands  by  itself  as  a  unit.  The  awkwardness 
and  impracticability  of  proving  the  truth  or  falsity 
of  a  statement  that  makes  several  assertions  has 
been  treated  under  the  head  of  Combined  Proposi- 
tions. Obviously,  there  are  unwarrantable  difficul- 
ties in  grouping  explanation  or  proof  about  such 
a  statement  as,  "  Municipal  ownership  has  failed 
in  Philadelphia,  has  succeeded  in  Edinburgh,  and 

88 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

is  likely  to  meet  with  indifferent  success  in  New 
Orleans."  Furthermore,  a  sentence  that  contains 
several  distinct  thoughts  is  very  ineffective  as  proof 
for  some  other  statement.  Since  one  part  of  the 
sentence  may  be  accepted  as  true  and  another  part 
rejected,  the  resulting  confusion  is  very  great.  To 
avoid  all  errors  of  this  kind,  the  student  should 
use,  as  far  as  possible,  only  simple  sentences. 

Rule  III.  Make  in  each  statement  only  a  single 
assertion. 

In  the  next  place,  one  who  draws  a  brief  should 
take  pains  to  frame  all  his  statements  in  as  concise 
a  form  as  he  can.  If  he  is  able  to  state  an  idea  in 
six  words,  he  should  not  use  seven.  This  principle 
does  not  mean  that  small  words  like  a,  an,  and  the 
should  be  left  out,  or  that  an  obvious  subject  may 
be  omitted ;  it  does  not  mean  that  the  "  diary " 
style  of  writing  is  permissible.  It  means  simply 
that  one  should  always  state  his  ideas  as  briefly  as 
possible  without  violating  any  of  the  rules  of  Com- 
position. Quotations  should  rarely  appear  in  a 
brief,  never  unless  they  are  very  short.  When 
an  arguer  wishes  to  make  use  of  another  writer's 
material,  he  should  condense  it  into  his  own  lan- 
guage, and  state  from  what  source  he  derived  his 
information.  In  an  expanded  argument  the  full 

89 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

quotation  may  appear.  The  ability  to  express  ideas 
both  concisely  and,  at  the  same  time,  clearly,  is  at- 
tained only  by  considerable  labor,  yet  a  departure 
from  the  principle  of  brevity  is  a  serious  violation  of 
good  brief -drawing.  Hence  the  rule : — 

Rule  IV.     Make  each  statement  as  concise  as  is 
consistent  with  clearness. 

Every  brief  is  primarily  a  process  of  explanation. 
From  this  fact  it  is  evident  that  clearness  must 
be  sought  above  all  other  qualities.  Not  only  must 
the  idea  expressed  be  understood,  but  the  relation 
between  ideas,  must  be  perfectly  plain  and  evident. 
The  reader  should  be  able  to  see  at  a  glance  what 
material  is  of  co-ordinate  rank  and  what  is  of  sub- 
ordinate rank.  This  perspicuity  is  especially  neces- 
sary in  the  discussion,  where  each  statement  is., 
either  being  proved  by  subordinate  statements  or  is 
serving  as  proof  for  some  other  statement.  The 
device  ordinarily  adopted  for  exhibiting  at  a  glance 
the  relation  between  the  ideas  in  a  brief  consists 
of  two  parts:  first,  all  subordinate  statements  are 
indented  farther  than  more  important  statements; 
and  second,  numbers  and  letters  are  used  to  in- 
dicate what  statements  are  of  co-ordinate  importance 
and  what  are  of  secondary  rank.  The  system  of 
marking  most  generally  adopted  is  as  follows: — 

90 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

I. 
A. 
1. 
a. 
1'. 

a'. 
B. 
1. 
a. 

II. 

A.  etc. 

Thus  the  "fifth  rule  is:— 

Rule  V.  Indicate  the  relation  between  statements 
by  indentation  and  by  the  use  of  symbols. 

In  indicating  the  relation  between  ideas,  a  writer 
should  never  put  more  than  one  symbol  before  a 
statement.  It  seems  almost  superfluous  to  mention 
an  error  so  apparent  as  the  double  use  of  symbols, 
but  the  mistake  is  frequently  made  and  much  con- 
fusion results.  The  numeral  I  before  a  heading 
indicates  that  the  statement  is  of  primary  impor- 
tance ;  the  letter  A  indicates  that  it  is  of  secondary 
importance.  If  a  statement  is  marked  IA,  appar- 
ently it  is  both  primary  and  secondary,  clearly  an 
impossibility. 

91 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

Rule  VI.    Mark  each  statement  with  only  one 
symbol. 


RULES  FOR  THE  INTRODUCTION. 

It  has  been  seen  that  a  brief  is  a  complete  compo- 
sition in  itself,  embodying  all  the  material  for  con- 
viction that  will  later  be  found  in  the  expanded 
argument.  The  introduction,  therefore,  must  con- 
tain sufficient  information  to  make  the  proof  of  the 
proposition  perfectly  clear.  This  portion  of  the 
brief  serves  as  a  connecting  link  between  the  prop- 
osition and  the  discussion;  it  must  explain  the 
nature  of  the  proposition  and  then  show  how  the 
proof  which  is  to  follow  applies  to  it.  The  exact 
work  that  the  introduction  to  a  brief  must  perform 
is  stated  in  the  following  rule: — 

Rule  VII.     Put  into  the  introduction  sufficient 
explanation  for  a  complete  understanding  of  the 
discussion.     This  explanation  usually  involves: — 
(a)  a  definition  of  terms, 
'(b)  an  explanation  of  the  meaning  of  the 

proposition, 

'(c)  a  statement  of  the  issues,  and 
(d)   the  partition. 

Neither  an  introduction  to  a  brief  nor  an  introduc- 
92 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

tion  to  a  complete  argument  should  contain  any 
statements  not  admitted  by  both  sides.  All  ideas 
that  savor  of  controversy  or  prejudice  have  no  place 
in  an  introduction.  The  sole  purpose  of  the  in- 
troduction is  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  discussion ; 
if  it  contains  anything  in  the  nature  of  proof,  any- 
thing which  is  not  admittedly  true,  it  is  no  longer 
pure  introduction,  but  becomes  in  part  discussion. 
If  explanation  and  proof  are  thus  thrown  together 
indiscriminately,  confusion  will  result.  Accordingly 
the  following  rule  is  of  great  importance: — 

Rule  VIII.  Put  into  the  introduction  only  state- 
ments admitted  by  both  sides. 

The  following  introductions  to  briefs  may  well 
serve  as  models  for  student's  work: — 

FIRST  MODEL. 

Resolved,  That  England  should  permanently  re- 
tain control  of  Egypt. 

Negative  Brief. 

INTRODUCTION. 

I.    Because  of  the  recent  rapid  development  of 
Egypt,  the  question  of  the  retention  of  this  , 
country  is  becoming  important.  r 
93 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

II.     The   following  explanations  will  aid  in  the 
discussion  of  the  problem: — 

A.  Egypt   is   that   strip  of   country   in  the 

northeastern  part  of   Africa,   drained 
by  the  Nile  and  its  tributaries. 

B.  England  has  an  army  of  occupation  in 

Egypt,     and     governs     it     nominally 
through  the  Khedive. 

C.  England    has    never    suggested    annex- 

ation. 

D.  England  has   shut  out  the  interference 

of    France    and   other    European    na- 
tions. 

E.  England  has  practically  ruled  Egypt  as  a/ 

dependency. 

III.  The  following  facts  are  agreed  upon: — 

A.  Some    nation    had    to    take    charge    of 

Egypt,  for 

1.  The  country  was  heavily  in  debt. 

2.  The  people  were  starving. 

B.  It  is  for  the  advantage  of  England  to  re- 

tain control  of  the  country. 

IV.  The  conflicting  arguments  on  the  question  are 

as  follows: — 

A.    Those  who  favor  the  control  of  Egypt 
by  England  have  certain  beliefs: — 
94 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

1.  They    believe    that    the    control    of 

Egypt  by  England  is  the  only  prac- 
tical solution  of  the  problem. 

2.  They  believe  that  the  present  status 

of   affairs   is   beneficial   to   Egypt 
and  to  the  whole  world. 
B.     Those  opposed  to  the  control  of  Egypt 
by  England  maintain  the  following: — 

1.  They  maintain  that  England  rules  in 

a  selfish  manner. 

2.  They  maintain  that  Turkey  and  not 

England    should    have    control   of 
Egypt. 

V.     From  this  conflict  of  opinion  it  appears  that 
the  points  to  be  determined  are: — 

A.  Is   Egypt   benefited   by   the   control   of 

England  ? 

B.  Is  the  suzerainty  of  England  over  Egypt 

the    only    practical    solution    of    the 
problem  ? 

C.  Is  the  control  of  Egypt  by  England  a 

benefit  to  the  whole  world? 

VI.    The  negative  will  attempt  to  prove  that  Eng- 
land should  not  permanently  retain  Egypt 
for  the  following  reasons : 
A.    English  control  is  harmful  to  Egypt. 
95 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

B.  English  control  is  not  the  only  solution  to 

the  Egyptian  problem. 

C.  English  control  is  harmful  to  other  na- 

tions. 

SECOND  MODEL. 

Resolved,    That    the    President   of   the    United 
States  should  be  elected  by  direct  popular  vote. 

Affirmative  Brief. 

INTRODUCTION. 

I.  The  present  method  of  electing  the  President 
of  the  United  States  has  been  both  praised 
and  condemned  ever  since  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution. 

A.  Two  methods  of  electing  the  President 
are  under  consideration:  the  present 
system  whereby  the  President  is  elected 
by  the  electoral  college,  and  the  pro- 
posed system  whereby  the  President 
would  be  elected  by  a  direct  popular 
vote. 

II.    These  two  systems  may  be  described  as  fol- 
lows : — 

A.  The  present  system  has  the  following 
characteristics : — 

96 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

1.  Each  state  elects  a  number  of  elec- 

tors equal  to  the  whole  number  of 
Senators  and  Representatives  to 
which  the  state  is  entitled  in  Con- 
gress. 

2.  These  electors  are  chosen  as  the  Leg- 

islature of  each  state  may  direct. 

3.  The  electors  meet  in  their  respective 

states  and  vote  by  ballot  for  the 
President. 

4.  Since  the  year  1800  the  electors  have 

always  voted  for  the  candidate 
nominated  by  the  national  party 
which  elected  them,  though  the 
Constitution  does  not  make  this  re- 
quirement. 

5.  The  ballots  are  sent  in  sealed  pack- 

ages to  the  President  of  the  Sen- 
ate, who  counts  them  and  declares 
the  candidate  receiving  a  majority 
vote  elected. 

6.  If  the  electors  fail  to  elect,  the  House 

of  Representatives  chooses  a  Pres- 
ident   from   the    three    candidates 
that  receive  the  greatest  number  of 
electoral  votes. 
97 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

B.  The  proposed  system  has  the  following 
characteristics : — 

1.  The    people    vote    directly    for    the 

President,  the  candidate  receiving 
a  majority  of  the  votes  being 
elected. 

2.  If  there  be  no  majority,  the  President 

is  elected  as  under  the  present  sys- 
tem when  the  electors  fail  to  elect. 

III.  The  real  question  to  be  answered  is,  Should 

the   direct  method  be  substituted   for  the 

present  method? 

A.  The  comparative  value  of  each  method 
must  be  judged  by  the  following  stand- 
ards : — 

1.  Which   would   be   the   more   practi- 

cable? 

2.  Which  would  give  the  voter   fuller 

enjoyment  of  his  right  of  suf- 
frage ? 

3.  Which  method  would  have  the  better 

effect  upon  the  general  welfare  of 
the  nation? 

IV.  The  affirmative  will  uphold  its  side  of  the 

proposition  by  establishing  the  three  follow- 
ing facts: — 

98 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

A.  The  direct  popular  vote  system  would  be 

more  practicable. 

B.  The  direct  popular  vote  system  would  be 

more  democratic. 

C.  The  direct  popular  vote  system  would  be 

better  for  the  general  welfare  of  the 
nation. 

EXERCISES. 

A.  (i)  Criticise  the  following  Introduction  to  a  brief,  and 
(2)  Write  a  suitable  Introduction  to  a  brief  on  this 
subject. 

City  Location  for  College. 
Introduction. 

A.  This  question  is  important. 

I.     The  following  explanation  will  aid  — 

(a)  In  the  understanding,  and 

(fc)  In  the  discussion  of  the  question. 

1.  Primarily  men  come  to  college  to  study. 

2.  Men  can  study  better  in  the  country. 

3.  But  is  this  really  the  case? 

B.  A  college  is  an  institution  of  learning  higher  in  rank 

than  a  high  school  or  an  academy. 

C.  The  issues  of  the  question  are  the  following: 

I.  Which    college    location   is    more    favorable   to 

health  and  intellectual  development? 
II.  Is  the  student  able  to  enter  athletics? 

III.  Does  the  student  in  the  lonely  country  college 
form  more  lasting  friendships? 

IV.  Which  is  the  cheaper? 
Which  is  the  better  location? 

99 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

B.  Put  into  brief  form  the  Introduction  found  on  page 
44- 

C.  Put  the  following  Introductions  into  brief  form  :— 

(i)    HOW  TRUSTS  AFFECT  PRICES. 

Perhaps  no  subject  in  connection  with  the  Industrial 
Combinations  of  the  last  few  years  has  been  more  dis- 
cussed than  that  of  their  influence  upon  prices.  Opinions 
have  differed  widely,  the  opponents  of  the  Combinations 
usually  believing  that  they  have  increased  prices  mate- 
rially, their  defenders  claiming  with  equal  positiveness 
that  they  have  reduced  prices.  Differences  of  opinion 
have  probably  originated  largely  from  the  fact  that  the 
subject  has  been  approached  from  different  points  of 
view;  and  mistakes  have  also,  in  many  cases,  been  made 
through  lack  of  a  careful  interpretation  of  available  facts. 
It  by  no  means  follows  that  the  Trusts  have  lowered 
prices  because  prices  have  fallen  within  a  few  years 
after  their  formation;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
Trusts  have  raised  prices  because  prices  have  been  in- 
creased. Neither  does  it  follow  that,  because  the  Indus- 
trial Combinations  might  through  their  economies  lower 
prices,  they  have,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  actually  done  so; 
nor  again  that,  with  the  possible  ability  to  increase  prices 
through  the  exercise  of  monopolistic  power,  they  have 
not  found  it  advisable  under  certain  circumstances  really 
to  lower  them.  Any  careful  discussion  of  the  subject  will 
involve,  first,  what  the  influence  of  combination  would 
enable  the  Trusts  to  do  regarding  prices;  second,  what 
the  Combinations  actually  have  done;  and,  third,  what 
effects  upon  society  may  be  anticipated  from  any  changes 
in  prices  made  by  Industrial  Combinations.1 

(2)  Mr.  Chairman:    This  bill   (H.  R.  17019)   which  I 

1  Jeremiah  W.  Jenks,  North  American  Review  for  June,  1901, 
p.  906. 

IOO 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

shall  ask  this  House  to  pass  to-day  is  one  of  that  general 
class  usually  called  "  private  bills  " ;  and  while  the  usage 
of  this  House  might  catalogue  it  under  that  head,  it  is 
in  reality  a  "public  bill,"  because  it  has  to  do  with  the 
interests  of  many  people  —  indeed,  an  entire  city  of  75,000 
population. 

This  bill  provides  that  the  legal  title  to  a  certain  tract 
of  land  situated  near  the  city  of  Tacoma,  the  title  to 
which  is  now  in  the  United  States  Government,  shall  be 
transferred  to  the  city  of  Tacoma. 

However,  I  wish  to  assure  this  House  that  as  a  matter 
of  fact  the  Government  practically  loses  nothing  by  the 
passage  of  this  bill.  I  realize  that  these  two  statements 
placed  side  by  side  seem  to  involve  a  contradiction.  There- 
fore I  will  make  a  brief  explanation  of  this  matter. 

Since  the  year  of  1866  the  Government  has  owned  a 
tract  of  land  adjoining  what  is  now  the  city  of  Tacoma; 
this  tract  of  land  contains  637.9  acres.  In  the  year  of 
1888  the  Government  gave  the  city  of  Tacoma  a  right  or 
license  to  use  and  occupy  this  land  as  a  city  park,  but 
retained  the  legal  title  in  the  Government,  because  it  was 
thought  that  at  some  future  time  the  Government  might 
need  to  use  and  occupy  this  land  for  military  purposes. 
Therefore  you  will  observe  that  the  present  condition  of 
the  title  to  this  land  is  that  the  legal  title  is  in  the 
Government,  with  the  right  in  the  city  to  use  and  occupy 
the  same.  This  bill,  if  it  shall  pass,  will  simply  reverse 
and  place  the  legal  title  to  this  land  in  the  city  of  Tacoma, 
with  the  right  remaining  in  the  Government  for  all  time 
to  come  to  take  possession  or  use  and  occupy  any  or  all 
of  this  land  that  it  might  need  for  military,  naval,  or 
lighthouse  purposes. 

I  wish  to  explain  briefly  to  this  House  why  the  passage 
of  this  bill  and  this  change  in  the  title  is  not  only  fair 
and  just,  but  the  failure  to  pass  this  bill  would,  in  my 

101 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

judgment,  be  very  unfair  to  the  75,000  people  in  the  city 
of  Tacoma.1 

(3)     GOVERNMENT    MANAGEMENT    OF    INDUS- 
TRIAL ENTERPRISES.2 

By  far  the  most  important  part  of  consumers'  co-opera- 
tion is  exemplified  in  government  management  of  indus- 
trial enterprises.  This  differs  in  two  important  particulars 
from  the  co-operative  agencies  already  described.  In  the 
first  place  the  choice  of  managers  of  a  government  busi- 
ness enterprise  is  connected  with  the  general  political 
machinery  of  the  country,  and  regulated  by  constitutional 
law  instead  of  by  statutes  of  incorporation.  In  the  sec- 
ond place,  these  managers  are  likely  to  fall  back  on  the 
taxing  powers  of  the  Government  to  make  up  any  deficit 
which  may  arise  in  the  operations  of  a  public  business 
enterprise;  or  in  the  converse  case  to  devote  any  surplus 
above  expenses  to  the  relief  of  tax  burdens  elsewhere. 
A  government  enterprise  is  managed  by  the  people  who 
represent,  or  are  supposed  to  represent,  the  consumers ; 
but  the  good  or  bad  economy  of  its  management  does 
not  necessarily  redound  to  the  profit  or  loss  of  those  who 
most  use  it. 

In  the  beginning  of  history,  the  government  is  the 
power  that  controls  the  army.  When  tribes  were  in  a 
state  of  warfare  with  one  another  defense  against  for- 
eign enemies  was  a  matter  of  primary  importance.  No 
man  could  let  his  private  convenience  stand  in  the  way 
of  effective  military  operations.  The  discipline  and  sub- 
ordination necessary  to  wage  successful  war  were  all-im- 
portant; and  all  the  powers  necessary  to  maintain  such 
discipline  were  entrusted  to  the  leaders  of  the  army. 

Somewhat  later  the  military  authorities  undertook  the 

1  Speech    of   Hon.    Francis   W.    Cushman    of    Washington,    in    the 
House  of   Representatives,   Feb.   28,    1905. 
•A.  T.  Hadley,  Economics,  pp.  390-393. 

102 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

work  of  maintaining  discipline  in  time  of  peace  as  well 
as  war,  and  of  defining  and  enforcing  the  rights  oi  mem- 
bers of  the  tribe  against  one  another,  no  less  than  against 
foreign  enemies.  This  function  was  not  accorded  to  them 
without  a  struggle.  The  priests,  under  whose  tutelage  the 
religious  sanction  for  tribal  customs  had  grown  up,  tried 
to  keep  in  their  own  hands  the  responsibility  of  upholding 
these  customs  and  the  physical  power  connected  with  it. 
In  some  races  they  succeeded,  but  among  European  peo- 
ples the  military  authorities  took  the  work  of  enforcing 
and  defining  laws  out  of  the  hands  of  the  priests,  and 
made  it  a  function  of  the  state  as  distinct  from  the 
Church.  As  security  from  foreign  enemies  increased,  this 
law-making  power  became  more  and  more  important.  The 
Government  was  less  exclusively  identified  with  the  army, 
and  more  occupied  with  the  courts,  the  legislatures,  and 
the  internal  police.  Its  judicial  and  legislative  functions 
assumed  a  prominence  at  least  as  great  as  its  military 
function. 

The  growth  of  private  property  was  also  coincident 
with  the  development  of  these  domestic  functions  of  gov- 
ernment. In  fact,  the  two  things  reinforced  one  another. 
The  production  and  accumulation  of  capital,  to  which 
private  property  gave  so  vigorous  an  impulse,  placed  the 
strong  men  of  the  community  in  a  position  where  they 
had  less  to  gain  by  war  and  more  by  peace.  It  put  them 
on  the  side  of  internal  tranquillity.  It  thus  made  the 
government  more  powerful,  and  this  in  turn  still  further 
increased  the  accumulations  of  capital.  But  along  with 
this  mutual  help,  which  strong  domestic  government  and 
strong  property  right  rendered  one  another,  there  was  an 
element  of  mutual  antagonism.  The  very  fulfillment  of 
those  functions  which  made  the  accumulation  of  capital 
possible,  rendered  it  impossible  for  the  government  to  do 
its  work  except  at  the  expense  of  the  capitalists.  It  was 
no  longer  possible  to  support  armies  by  booty,  or  courts 

103 


Brief  of  the  Introduction 

by  fines  and  forfeitures.  The  expense  of  maintaining  or- 
der had  to  be  paid  by  its  friends  instead  of  by  its  enemies. 
The  growth  of  private  property  was  followed  by  the  de- 
velopment of  a  system  of  taxation,  which,  in  theory  at 
any  rate,  involved  the  power  to  destroy  such  property. 

The  existence  of  such  a  system  of  taxation,  with  the 
machinery  for  collecting  money  in  this  way,  allows  the 
government  more  freedom  of  industrial  action  than  any 
private  individual  can  command.  It  can  make  up  a 
deficit  by  compulsory  payments;  and  this  gives  it  a 
wider  range  of  power  in  deciding  what  services  it  will 
undertake  and  what  prices  it  will  charge  —  a  power  which 
affords  almost  unlimited  opportunity  for  good  or  bad 
use,  according  to  the  degree  of  skill  and  integrity  with 
which  it  is  exercised. 

Every  extension  of  government  activity  into  new  fields 
restricts  private  enterprise  in  two  ways:  first  by  limiting 
the  field  for  investment  of  private  capital,  and  second, 
by  possibly,  if  not  probably,  appropriating  through  taxa- 
tion a  part  of  the  returns  from  private  enterprise  in  all 
other  fields.  The  question  whether  a  government  should 
manage  an  industry  reduces  itself  to  this :  Are  the  de- 
ficiencies or  evils  connected  with  private  management 
such  that  it  is  wise  to  give  government  officials  the  taxing 
power  which  constitutes  the  distinctive  feature  of  public 
industrial  management? 

D.  Draw  an  Introduction  to  a  brief  on  each  of  the 
propositions  given  on  page  82. 


104 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE  DISCUSSION  — CONVICTION 

IT  has  been  seen  that  one  who  wishes  to  establish 
the  truth  or  the  falsity  of  a  proposition  must  answer 
certain  vital  questions  that  are  bound  to  arise  in 
connection  with  it.  Then,  as  different  persons  may 
answer  these  questions  in  different  ways,  it  be- 
comes necessary  for  him  to  convince  his  audience 
that  his  answers  are  correct.  He  must  always  be- 
ware of  assertiveness.  This  defect  occurs  whenever 
a  speaker  or  writer  makes  a  statement  but  does  not 
establish  its  truth.  As  simple  denial  is  always  suf- 
ficient answer  to  mere  assertion,  an  unsupported 
statement  is  worthless.  No  one  can  hope  to  win  in 
debate  or  change  another's  belief  unless  he  can 
prove  that  what  he  says  is  true;  he  must  substan- 
tiate with  proof  every  statement  that  he  makes,  and 
show  that  no  possibility  for  error  or  deceit  can 
exist.  In  argumentation  every  statement  not  com- 
monly accented  as  true  must  be  proved. 
105 


The  Discussion 

The  following  passage  is  a  highly  assertive  bit  of 
argument;  its  worthlessness  is  apparent. 

The  decision  of  Congress  to  increase  still  further  our 
already  enormous  navy  is  an  injustice  to  every  individual 
who  contributes  to  the  support  of  the  national  govern- 
ment. It  is  a  crime  to  squander  millions  of  money  on  a 
fleet  that  we  do  not  need.  Our  navy  to-day  is  more  than 
the  equal  of  any  foreign  armament  that  floats.  Though 
second  in  number  of  ships,  it  ranks  first  in  efficiency 
among  all  the  navies  of  the  world.  No  other  country 
can  boast  of  such  marksmanship  as  our  gunners  display; 
no  other  country  can  boast  of  such  armor  plate  as  is  to  be 
found  on  our  first-class  battleships ;  not  even  England  can 
successfully  compete  with  us  in  seamanship  and  in  general 
efficiency. 

Proof  is  "  anything  which  serves  either  immedi- 
ately or  mediately  to  convince  the  mind  of  the  truth 
or  the  falsehood  of  a  fact  or  proposition."  1  Belief 
in  a  specific  statement  is  induced  by  a  presentation 
of  pertinent  facts,  and  usually  by  a  process  of 
reasoning  whereby  from  the  existence  of  these 
known  facts,  the  conclusion,  hitherto  unaccepted, 
is  reached.  Those  facts  that  have  to  do  with  the 
proposition  under  discussion  are  known  as  evidence. 
The  process  of  combining  facts  and  deriving  an 
inference  from  them  is  known  as  reasoning.  Evi- 
dence may  be  made  up  of  the  testimony  of  witnesses, 

1  On  Evidence,  Best,  p.  45. 

106 


The  Discussion 

the  opinion  of  experts,  knowledge  derived  from 
experience,  the  testimony  of  documents,  or  circum- 
stances that  are  generally  known  to  have  existed. 
Reasoning  is  the  process  by  which  men  form  opin- 
ions, render  judgments,  explain  events,  or  in  any 
way  seek  new  truths  from  established  facts. 

In  the  following  bit  of  proof,  notice  the  facts  that 
are  stated,  and  see  how,  by  a  process  of  reasoning, 
they  go  to  substantiate  the  idea  that  they  are  in- 
tended to  prove : — 

New  York  hires  two  policemen  where  Nashville  hires 
one,  and  pays  them  double  the  salary;  yet  Nashville  is 
as  peaceable  and  orderly  as  New  York.  In  Nashville  any 
child  of  school  age  can  have  a  seat  in  the  public  schools 
all  through  the  year;  in  New  York  there  has  been  a 
shortage  of  seats  for  many  years.  Nashville  has  a  filtered 
water  supply;  New  York  is  going  to  have  one  as  soon  as 
the  $12,000,000  filtration  plant  can  be  built  at  Jerome  Park. 
Street  car  fares  are  five  cents  in  both  cities;  in  Nashville 
one  can  always  get  a  seat;  in  New  York  one  has  to 
scramble  for  standing  room.  The  southern  city  maintains 
hospitals,  parks,  food  inspectors,  and  all  other  things 
common  to  New  York  and  other  large  cities.  Apparently, 
Nashville  is  giving  as  much  to  its  inhabitants  for  six 
dollars  per  capita  as  New  York  for  thirty-one.  These 
facts  can  point  to  but  one  conclusion  —  that  Nashville  has 
a  superior  system  of  government. 

Since  the  first  step  in  the  generation  of  proof  is 
the  discovery  of  facts,  the  arguer  should  at  the  very 
outset  become  sufficiently  familiar  with  the  various 
107 


The  Discussion 

kinds  of  evidence  to  estimate  the  value  and  strength 
of  each  idea  that  has  a  bearing  upon  the  subject. 


I.    EVIDENCE. 

There  are  two  kinds  of  evidence :  (a)  direct,  and 
'(b)  indirect  or  circumstantial.  If  a  man  sees  a 
gang  of  strikers  set  fire  to  the  buildings  of  their 
former  employer,  his  evidence  is  direct.  If,  how- 
ever, he  only  sees  them  stealthily  leaving  the  build- 
ings just  before  the  fire  breaks  out,  his  evidence  is 
indirect.  In  the  latter  case  the  man's  testimony  is 
direct  evidence  that  the  men  were  in  the  vicinity  of 
the  fire  when  it  started,  but  it  is  indirect  evidence 
that  they  perpetrated  the  crime.  If  a  student  who 
has  failed  to  do  good  work  throughout  the  term, 
and  who  has  had  little  or  no  opportunity  for  special 
preparation,  passes  in  a  perfect  paper  at  the  close 
of  an  examination,  the  presumption  is  that  he  has 
received  aid.  The  evidence  on  which  this  supposi- 
tion rests  is  entirely  circumstantial.  But  if  some 
one  saw  the  student  obtaining  aid,  that  fact  would 
be  direct  evidence  against  him. 

Direct  evidence,  as  a  rule,  is  considered  more 
valuable  than  indirect,  but  each  kind  is  frequently 
sufficient  to  induce  belief.  The  best  possible  kind 
108 


The  Discussion 

of  evidence,  the  kind  that  is  least  liable  to  contain 
error  or  falsehood,  is  a  combination  of  both  direct 
and  indirect.  Either  one  by  itself  may  be  untrust- 
worthy. The  unreliability  of  evidence  given  by 
eyewitnesses  is  shown  by  the  conflicting  stories  they 
frequently  tell  concerning  the  same  incident  even 
when  they  are  honestly  attempting  to  relate  the  facts 
as  they  occurred.  Also,  it  is  always  possible  that 
the  inferences  drawn  from  a  combination  of  cir- 
cumstances may  be  entirely  wrong.  When,  how- 
ever, both  kinds  of  evidence  are  available,  each 
confirming  the  other  and  leading  up  to  the  same 
conclusion,  then  the  possibility  of  error  is  reduced 
to  a  minimum. 

The  opportunity  of  the  college  student  for  ob- 
taining evidence  in  his  argumentative  work  is 
limited.  A  lawyer  before  entering  upon  an  impor- 
tant case  often  spends  weeks  and  months  in  in- 
vestigation; scientists  sometimes  devote  a  whole 
lifetime  in  trying  to  establish  a  single  hypothesis. 
But  the  college  student  in  preparing  an  argument 
must  obtain  his  evidence  in  a  few  days.  There  are 
several  sources  at  his  disposal.  The  first  available 
source  is  his  fund  of  general  knowledge  and  ex- 
perience. If  a  man  can  establish  a  statement  by 
saying  that  he  personally  knows  it  to  be  true,  he  has 
109 


The  Discussion 

valuable  proof.  Then  the  people  with  whom  the 
student  comes  in  contact  constitute  another  source 
of  evidence.  Anyone  who  can  give  information  on 
a  subject  that  is  being  investigated  is  a  valuable 
witness.  Especially  in  discussions  on  questions 
which  pertain  to  college  life,  the  opinions  and  ex- 
periences of  college  men  and  of  prominent  educators 
are  unsurpassed  as  evidence.  But  the  greatest 
source  of  evidence  for  the  student  of  argumentation 
is  the  library.  Here  he  may  consult  the  best  thought 
of  all  time  in  every  branch  of  activity.  He  may 
review  the  opinions  of  statesmen,  economists,  edu- 
cators, and  scientists,  and  introduce  as  evidence 
their  experiences  and  the  results  of  their  investiga- 
tions. Here  he  may  familiarize  himself  with  the 
current  events  of  the  world,  and  draw  his  own  con- 
clusions as  to  their  significance.  In  fact,  a  well 
equipped  library  treats  of  all  subjects,  however 
broad  or  narrow  they  may  be,  and  furnishes  evi- 
dence for  all  sorts  of  debatable  questions. 

As  not  all  evidence  is  equally  valuable,  a  large 
part  of  the  work  of  argumentation  consists  in  ap- 
plying tests  to  the  evidence  at  hand  for  the  sake  of 
determining  what  facts  are  irrefutable,  what  are 
doubtful,  and  what  are  worthless.  Moreover,  one 
engaged  in  argumentation  must  test  not  only  his 
no 


The  Discussion 

own  evidence  but  also  that  of  the  other  side.  No 
better  method  of  refuting  an  opponent's  argument 
exists  than  to  show  that  the  facts  on  which  it  rests 
are  untrustworthy.  Tests  of  evidence  may  be  di- 
vided into  two  classes:  tests  of  the  source  from 
which  it  comes,  and  tests  of  the  quality  of  the  evi- 
dence itself. 

A.    Tests  of  the  Source  of  Evidence. 

Since  in  courts  of  law,  in  college  debate,  and 
in  all  kinds  of  argumentation,  facts  are  established 
by  the  testimony  of  witnesses,  the  sources  of  evi- 
dence are  the  witnesses  who  give  it.  The  debater 
and  the  argumentative  writer  have  not  the  oppor- 
tunity, as  has  the  lawyer,  of  producing  the  witnesses 
and  permitting  them  to  tell  their  own  stories  to  the 
audience.  He  must  himself  relate  the  evidence ;  and, 
in  order  that  it  may  be  believed,  he  must  tell  whence 
it  comes.  The  sources  of  evidence  may  be  common 
rumor,  newspapers,  magazines,  official  documents, 
private  citizens,  or  public  officials.  The  extent  to 
which  these  witnesses  are  accepted  as  trustworthy 
by  the  people  before  whom  they  are  quoted  de- 
termines in  a  large  measure  whether  or  not  the 
evidence  will  be  believed.  Tests  for  determining  the 
trustworthiness  of  witnesses  will  next  be  given, 
in 


The  Discussion 

The  first  test  of  the  source  of  evidence  should 
be:— 

(i)  Is  the  witness  competent  to  give  a  trust- 
worthy account  of  the  matter  under  consideration? 

To  answer  this  question,  first  determine  whether 
the  facts  to  be  established  are  such  that  any  ordinary 
person  can  speak  concerning  them  with  reasonable 
accuracy,  or  whether  they  can  be  understood  only 
by  persons  who  have  received  special  training.  A 
landsman  could  well  testify  that  a  naval  battle  had 
occurred,  but  only  a  man  with  nautical  training 
could  accurately  describe  the  maneuvers  of  the 
ships  and  tell  just  how  the  engagement  progressed. 
A  coal  heaver's  description  of  a  surgical  operation 
would  establish  nothing,  except  perhaps  the  identity 
of  the  people  and  a  few  other  general  matters ;  only 
a  person  with  a  medical  education  could  accurately 
describe  the  procedure.  The  testimony  of  any  one 
but  a  naturalist  would  not  even  tend  to  prove  the  ex- 
istence of  an  hitherto  unknown  species  of  animal 
life.  A  witness  without  technical  knowledge  can- 
not give  reliable  evidence  on  matters  of  a  technical 
nature. 

Then,  if  it  is  found  that  the  witness  does  possess 
the  necessary  technical  training,  or  that  no  previous 
training  is  necessary,  still  further  test  his  ability  to 
112 


The  Discussion 

give  reliable  evidence  by  asking  whether  he  has  had 
ample  opportunity  for  investigating  the  facts  to  the 
existence  of  which  he  testifies.  For  even  a  skilled 
player  sitting  in  the  first  base  bleachers  at  a  baseball 
game  to  criticise  an  umpire's  decisions  on  balls  and 
strikes  is  absurd;  the  opinion  of  a  transient  visitor 
to  Panama  on  the  methods  used  in  digging  the 
canal  is  not  valuable;  a  traveler  who  has  spent  a 
single  month  in  Japan  cannot  draw  reliable  con- 
clusions on  the  merits  and  defects  of  its  political 
structure.  In  not  one  of  these  cases  has  the  op- 
portunity for  investigation  been  sufficient  to  render 
the  witness  able  to  give  reliable  evidence. 

A  current  magazine  in  discussing  the  weakness  of 
testimony  that  comes  from  incompetent  witnesses 
says : — 

Generalizations  about  the  tastes  and  interests  of  the  age 
are  so  easy  that  all  except  the  most  wary  fall  into  them, 
and  the  world  is  full  of  off-hand  opinions  touching  the 
condition  of  society  and  the  state  of  the  world,  which 
are  far  more  conspicuous  for  courage  than  for  discretion. 
There  are  very  few  men  or  women  in  any  particular 
period  who  know  it  intimately  enough,  and  with  sufficient 
insight  and  sympathy,  to  pass  judgment  upon  it.  One 
hears  almost  every  day  sweeping  judgments  about  Amer- 
icans, English,  French,  Germans,  Chinese,  and  Japanese 
which  are  entirely  valueless,  unless  they  are  based  on  a 
very  broad  and  intimate  knowledge  of  these  various 
peoples,  a  knowledge  which,  in  the  nature  of  things,  few 
8 


The  Discussion 

people  possess.  The  charming  American  girl  who  de- 
clared that,  since  gloves  are  cheaper  in  Paris,  American 
civilization  is  a  failure,  may  stand  for  a  type  of  interesting 
and  piquant  oracles,  to  be  heard  with  attention,  but  under 
no  circumstances  to  be  followed.  Americans  are  so  fa- 
miliar with  the  European  traveler  who  arrives  and  makes 
up  his  opinion  over  night  in  regard  to  men,  morals,  and 
manners  in  the  Western  world  and  have  so  often  been 
the  victim  of  this  self-confident  critic,  that  they  ought  not 
to  repeat  the  same  blunder  in  dealing  with  other  peoples.1 

In  the  court  room,  where  witnesses  are  present 
and  can  be  carefully  examined  by  the  lawyers  on 
both  sides,  it  is  customary  to  apply  both  mental  and 
physical  tests.  The  witness  who  testifies  to  knowl- 
edge of  some  event  that  occurred  a  long  time  before 
is  given  a  memory  test;  the  senses,  also,  through 
which  occurrences  are  perceived  are  frequently  ex- 
amined. But  as  writers  and  debaters  in  general  sel- 
dom have  the  opportunity  to  apply  tests  of  this  sort 
to  their  sources  of  information,  and  as  these  tests 
are  seldom  important  outside  of  the  law  courts,  they 
are  not  taken  up  in  detail  in  this  book. 

The  second  test  of  the  source  of  evidence  should 
be:— 

(2)  Is  the  witness  willing  to  give  an  accurate  ac- 
count of  the  matter? 

One  important  influence  that  may  cause  a  witness 

1The  Outlook,  July  20,   1907. 

114 


The  Discussion 

to  give  false  evidence  is  self-interest.  Not  only  in- 
dividuals, but  social  and  industrial  organizations, 
political  parties,  communities,  and  states  are  fre- 
quently swayed  by  this  emotion  to  the  extent  of  de- 
liberately perverting  the  truth.  The  evidence  found 
in  newspapers  and  other  publications  is  often  false, 
or  at  least  misleading,  because  it  has  been  tampered 
with  by  those  who  put  their  selfish  interests  before 
all  else.  The  owner  of  an  industry  protected  by  a 
high  tariff  would  scarcely  be  considered  a  reliable 
witness  in  matters  affecting  tariff  reform.  The  opin- 
ion of  a  railroad  magnate  on  the  subject  of  a  com- 
pulsory two-cent  rate  law  would  not  be  considered  as 
unbiased.  No  disinterested  seeker  after  truth  would 
accept  the  political  conclusions  of  a  newspaper 
owned  by  a  politician  or  recognized  as  the  organ 
of  a  certain  party.  In  all  such  cases,  self-interest 
may  prompt  the  witness  to  make  statements  not  in 
strict  accordance  with  the  truth.  Perjury  in  the 
court  room  is  not  uncommon;  falsehood  elsewhere 
must  be  guarded  against.  The  arguer  should  al- 
ways carefully  scrutinize  the  testimony  of  a  witness 
that  has  any  special  interest  in  the  matter  for  which 
evidence  is  being  sought.  Though  the  self-interest 
is  strong,  the  witness  may  be  willing  to  state  the 
matter  accurately ;  but,  as  long  as  human  nature  re- 


The  Discussion 

mains  as  it  is,  this  willingness  should  not  be  taken 
for  granted. 

The  third  test  of  the  source  of  evidence  should 
be:— 

(3)     Is  the  witness  prejudiced? 

Another  emotion  that  frequently  keeps  a  witness 
from  telling  the  exact  truth  is  prejudice.  Every  one 
is  familiar  with  instances  of  how  this  passion  warps 
men's  morals  and  corrupts  their  judgment.  If  a 
man  is  prejudiced  for  or  against  a  person  or  a  sys- 
tem, he  cannot  be  accepted  as  a  trustworthy  witness 
in  matters  where  his  prejudice  comes  into  play. 
Should  an  economist  known  to  favor  socialism  write 
a  treatise  advocating  municipal  ownership  of  public 
utilities,  his  evidence  and  his  reasoning  would  not 
be  convincing;  it  would  be  taken  for  granted  that 
he  looked  at  the  subject  through  socialistic  spec- 
tacles. A  person  who  sets  out  with  the  expectation 
and  intention  of  finding  flaws  in  anything  usually 
succeeds.  Though  he  is  willing  to  tell  the  exact 
truth,  yet  because  of  his  prejudice  he  is  sure  to  see 
only  that  which  will  coincide  with  his  preconceived 
opinions.  For  this  reason,  political  speeches  and 
intensely  partisan  books  and  papers  are  invariably 
unreliable  sources  of  evidence  even  though  they  are 
not  intentionally  dishonest. 
116 


The  Discussion 

The  fourth  test  of  the  source  of  evidence  is: — 

(4)  Does  the  witness  have  a  good  reputation  for 
honesty  and  accuracy? 

The  human  conscience  is  so  constituted  that  many 
people  deviate  from  the  truth  for  no  apparent 
reason  whatever.  Some  are  given  to  exaggeration ; 
some  habitually  pretend  to  know  that  of  which  they 
are  entirely  ignorant;  others  are  so  inaccurate  that 
everything  they  say  is  open  to  grave  suspicion.  If 
a  witness  is  known  to  have  been  repeatedly  dis- 
honest or  inaccurate  in  the  past,  little  reliance 
should  be  placed  in  his  testimony.  "  Yellow 
journalism,"  which  is  largely  the  reflection  of  com- 
mon rumor,  affords  constant  examples  of  witnesses 
that  give  questionable  evidence. 

Ability  and  willingness  to  give  exact  evidence, 
an  unprejudiced  attitude,  and  a  good  reputation  for 
honesty  and  accuracy  are  the  qualities  that  should 
characterize  the  sources  of  evidence.  If  a  writer 
or  speaker  is  securing  testimony  from  friends  or 
acquaintances,  the  application  of  these  tests  is  not 
difficult.  If,  however,  the  sources  are  books  and 
periodicals,  his  work  is  harder;  but  to  be  success- 
ful, he  must  not  shirk  it.  When  one  procures 
evidence  from  books,  he  should  investigate  the 
character  and  standing  of  the  author.  When  one 
117 


The  Discussion 

obtains  it  from  signed  articles  in  papers  and  maga- 
zines, he  must  consider  both  the  author  and  the 
character  of  the  publication.  In  the  case  of  news- 
paper "  stories  "  and  editorials,  one  should  find  out 
on  what  general  policy  and  principles  the  paper  is 
conducted.  A  cautious  arguer  will  always  avoid, 
as  far  as  he  can,  the  use  of  evidence  that  comes 
from  a  doubtful  source.  If  one  finds  that  an 
opponent  has  used  the  testimony  of  questionable 
witnesses,  he  can,  by  exposing  the  fact,  easily  refute 
the  argument. 

Necessity  of  stating  sources.  It  sometimes 
happens  that  an  arguer  fails  to  state  the  source  of 
his  evidence.  This  omission  is  usually  fatal  to  suc- 
cess. No  one  is  likely  to  put  much  confidence  in 
statements  that  are  introduced  by  such  flimsy  pre- 
ambles as,  "A  certain  statesman  has  declared"; 
"  I  have  read  somewhere  " ;  "  An  acquaintance  told 
me."  Not  only  must  evidence  come  from  sources 
that  seem  good  to  the  writer,  but  those  sources  must 
be  satisfactory  to  the  audience.  In  the  last  analysis 
the  audience  is  the  judge  of  what  is  credible  and 
what  is  not.  Moreover,  if  the  evidence  is  of  great 
importance,  or  is  liable  to  be  disputed,  the  arguer 
should  show  in  a  few  words  why  the  witness  is 
especially  reliable. 

118 


The  Discussion 

B.     Internal  Tests  of  Evidence. 

(i)  Is  the  evidence  consistent  with  (a)  other 
evidence  in  the  same  argument;  (b)  known  facts; 
(c)  human  experience? 

The  requirement  that  every  separate  bit  of  evi- 
dence in  an  argument  shall  be  consistent  with  every 
other  bit  of  evidence  in  the  same  argument  is  too 
well  understood  to  need  explanation.  One  familiar 
with  courts  of  law  knows  that  a  witness  who  con- 
tradicts himself  is  not  believed.  Furthermore,  if  the 
testimony  of  several  witnesses  for  the  same  side  is 
inconsistent,  the  case  for  that  side  is  materially 
weakened.  So  it  is  in  general  debate:  the  arguer 
who  wishes  to  succeed  must  not  use  evidence  that 
is  self-contradictory.  His  proof  must  "  hang  to- 
gether " ;  his  facts  must  all  go  to  establish  the  same 
conclusion. 

A  flagrant  violation  of  this  principle  once  oc- 
curred in  a  class-room  debate.  The  speaker  for 
the  negative  on  the  proposition,  "  Resolved,  That 
freshmen  should  be  ineligible  for  college  teams," 
said  that  such  a  rule  would  deprive  the  freshmen  of 
much-needed  physical  exercise.  Later  on,  he  said 
that  just  as  many  freshmen  would  receive  injuries 
under  this  rule  as  without  it,  since  they  would  take 
119 


The  Discussion 

part  in  equally  dangerous  contests  as  members  of 
freshmen  teams.  This  contradiction  ruined  his 
argument. 

In  the  next  place,  evidence  to  be  of  any  value 
whatever,  must  be  consistent  with  what  is  known 
about  the  case.  If  an  arguer  is  so  careless  as  to 
make  statements  contradictory  either  to  well-estab- 
lished facts  or  to  facts  easily  proved,  he  cannot  hope 
to  attain  the  slightest  measure  of  success.  Only 
one  guilty  of  gross  neglect  or  absolute  falsehood  is 
likely  to  fall  into  such  an  error.  At  one  time  the 
story  was  circulated  that,  during  his  early  life, 
Lincoln  had  been  insane.  In  the  following  passage 
Ida  M.  Tarbell  shows  that  the  testimony  on  which 
this  belief  was  founded  is  inconsistent  with  the 
known  facts  of  the  case,  and  is,  therefore,  palpably 
untrue : — 

"Mr.  Thornton  went  on  to  say  that  he  knew  beyond  a 
doubt  that  the  sensational  account  of  Lincoln's  insanity 
was  untrue,  and  he  quoted  from  the  House  journal  to 
show  how  it  was  impossible  that,  as  Lamon  says,  using 
Herndon's  notes,  *  Lincoln  went  crazy  as  a  loon,  and  did 
not  attend  the  legislature  in  1841-1842,  for  this  reason ' ; 
or,  as  Herndon  says,  that  he  had  to  be  watched  constantly. 
According  to  the  record  taken  from  the  journals  of  the 
House  by  Mr.  Thornton,  which  have  been  verified  in 
Springfield,  Mr.  Lincoln  was  in  his  seat  in  the  House  on 
that  '  fatal  first  of  January '  when  he  is  asserted  to  have 
120 


The  Discussion 

been  groping  in  the  shadow  of  madness,  and  he  was  also 
there  on  the  following  day." 

Lincoln  himself  was  an  expert  at  detecting  incon- 
sistency wherever  it  existed.  He  won  many  of  his 
lawsuits  by  the  straightforward  method  of  showing 
that  the  one  or  two  vital  statements  on  which  the 
whole  case  of  the  opposition  rested  were  false,  inas- 
much as  they  were  inconsistent  with  well-established 
and  incontrovertible  facts.  An  instance  of  this 
sort  is  here  described : — 

The  most  damaging  evidence  was  that  of  one  Allen, 
who  swore  that  he  had  seen  Armstrong  strike  Metzker 
about  ten  or  eleven  o'clock  in  the  evening.  When  asked 
how  he  could  see,  he  answered  that  the  moon  shone 
brightly.  Under  Lincoln's  questioning  he  repeated  the 
statement  until  it  was  impossible  that  the  jury  should 
forget  it.  With  Allen's  testimony  unimpeached,  conviction 
seemed  certain. 

Lincoln's  address  to  the  jury  was  full  of  pathos.  It 
was  not  as  a  hired  attorney  that  he  was  there,  he  said, 
but  to  discharge  a  debt  of  friendship.  .  .  .  But  Lin- 
coln was  not  relying  on  sympathy  alone  to  win  his  case. 
In  closing  he  reviewed  the  evidence,  showing  that  all 
depended  on  Allen's  testimony,  and  this  he  said  he  could 
prove  to  be  false.  Allen  never  saw  Armstrong  strike 
Metzker  by  the  light  of  the  moon,  for  at  the  hour  when 
he  said  he  saw  the  fight,  between  ten  and  eleven  o'clock, 
the  moon  was  not  in  the  heavens.  Then  procuring  an 
almanac,  he  passed  it  to  the  judge  and  jury.  The  moon, 


121 


The  Discussion 

which  was  on  that  night  only  in  its  first  quarter,  had  set 
before  midnight.1 

An  arguer  should  also  be  extremely  careful  to 
use  evidence  that  on  its  face  appears  reasonable. 
Only  an  extremely  credulous  audience  will  accept 
ideas  that  run  counter  to  human  belief  and  experi- 
ence. To  attribute  the  occurrence  of  an  event  to 
supernatural  causes  would  bring  a  smile  of  derision 
to  any  but  a  most  ignorant  and  superstitious  person. 
To  attribute  to  men  qualities  and  characteristics 
that  human  experience  has  shown  they  do  not 
possess  will  bring  equal  discredit.  No  one  is  likely 
to  accept  evidence  that  contradicts  his  habits  of 
thinking,  that  is  contrary  to  what  his  life  and  ex- 
perience have  taught  him  is  true.  For  this  reason 
savage  people  are  slow  to  believe  the  teachings  of 
the  Christian  religion.  For  this  reason  it  is  difficult 
to  make  an  audience  believe  that  any  one  will  de- 
liberately and  consistently  work  against  his  own 
interests,  or  follow  any  other  unusual  line  of  action. 
Evidence  contrary  to  human  experience  may  be 
true,  but  unless  the  exigencies  of  the  argument  de- 
mand its  use,  the  arguer  will  do  well  to  omit  it 
entirely.  If  he  is  obliged  to  use  it,  he  should  make 

JThe  Life  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  I,  p.  272.     Ida  M.  Tarbell. 
The  Doubleday  &  McClure  Co. 

122 


The  Discussion 

it  appear  as  reasonable  as  he  can,  and  also  sub- 
stantiate it  with  careful  proof. 

Huxley  appreciated  the  fact  that  evidence,  to  be 
believed,  must  be  in  accordance  with  man's  experi- 
ence when  he  wrote  the  following: — 

If  any  one  were  to  try  to  persuade  you  that  an  oyster 
shell  (which  is  also  chiefly  composed  of  carbonate  of 
lime)  had  crystallized  out  of  sea-water,  I  suppose  you 
would  laugh  at  the  absurdity.  Your  laughter  would  be 
justified  by  the  fact  that  all  experience  tends  to  show 
that  oyster-shells  are  formed  by  the  agency  of  oysters, 
and  in  no  other  way. 

The  ease  with  which  an  argument  that  does  not 
satisfy  this  requirement  may  be  overthrown  is 
clearly  shown  in  the  following  extract  from  a 
student's  forensic: — * 

To  say  that  the  Cuban  reconcentrados  sunk  the  Maine 
in  an  effort  to  embroil  the  United  States  in  a  conflict 
with  Spain  is  the  veriest  foolishness.  There  is  not  one 
scrap  of  documentary  evidence  to  show  that  such  was  the 
case.  Moreover,  such  an  act  would  be  unparalleled  in 
the  annals  of  history.  It  is  unreasonable,  contrary  to  all 
experience,  that  those  oppressed  people  should  have 
brought  disaster,  involving  the  destruction  of  property 
and  the  loss  of  many  lives,  upon  the  very  nation  that 
they  were  looking  to  for  assistance. 

(2)  Is  the  evidence  first-hand  or  hearsay 
evidence? 


123 


The  Discussion 

It  is  universally  recognized  that  hearsay  evidence 
is  unreliable.  A  narrative  is  sure  to  become  so 
garbled  by  passing  from  mouth  to  mouth  that  un- 
less a  witness  can  testify  to  a  fact  from  his  own 
personal  knowledge  the  evidence  he  gives  is  worthy 
of  little  credence.  There  is  sufficient  chance  for 
error  when  the  person  who  witnessed  the  event 
relates  the  account  himself;  if  the  story  is  told  by 
a  second,  and  perhaps  by  a  third  person,  it  is  likely 
to  reflect  but  little  of  what  really  happened.  Every 
one  is  familiar  with  the  exaggerations  of  common 
rumor ;  it  distorts  facts  so  that  they  are  unrecogniz- 
able. The  works  of  Herodotus  are  untrustworthy 
because  he  frequently  believed  hearsay  evidence. 
Since  second-hand  evidence  both  fails  to  establish 
anything  worth  while,  if  allowed  to  stand,  and  is 
easily  overthrown  even  by  a  very  little  first-hand 
evidence,  an  arguer  will  do  well  to  follow  the  cus- 
tom of  the  law  courts,  and,  as  a  rule,  exclude  it 
altogether. 

(3)  Can  the  evidence  be  considered  as  especially 
valuable? 

(a)  Hurtful  admissions  constitute  an  especially 
valuable  kind  of  evidence.  Since  men  are  not  wont 
to  give  evidence  detrimental  to  their  personal  in- 
terest unless  impelled  to  do  so  by  conscientious 
124 


The  Discussion 

scruples,  any  testimony  damaging  to  the  one  who 
gives  it  is  in  all  probability  not  only  truthful,  but 
also  the  result  of  careful  investigation.  When  a 
practising  physician  admits  that  half  the  ailments 
of  mankind  are  imaginary  or  so  trivial  as  to  need 
no  medical  attention,  he  is  making  a  statement  that 
is  likely  to  injure  his  business;  for  this  reason  he 
is  probably  stating  the  result  of  his  experience 
truthfully.  If  a  railroad  president  says  that  in  his 
opinion  government  supervision  of  railroads  will 
benefit  the  public  in  the  matter  of  rates  and  service, 
it  may  be  taken  for  granted  that  he  has  given  his 
honest  belief,  and  that  his  natural  reluctance  to 
surrender  any  authority  of  his  own  has  kept  him 
from  speaking  carelessly.  If  a  member  of  the 
United  States  Senate  admits  that  that  body  is  cor- 
rupt, and  selfish,  and  untrustworthy,  he  is  lowering 
his  own  rank;  therefore  it  is  reasonable  to  believe 
that  he  is  speaking  the  truth  according  to  his  honest 
belief. 

The  following  is  an  example  of  this  kind  of 
evidence : — 

It  was  stated  during  the  Manchurian  campaign  that  the 
Jewish  soldiers,  of  whom  Kuropatkin  had  about  35,000, 
not  only  failed  to  hold  their  ground  under  fire,  but  by 
their  timidity  threw  their  comrades  into  panic.  But  good 
evidence  can  be  cited  from  the  correspondents  of  the 

125 


The  Discussion 

Novoye  Vremya,  an  Anti-Semitic  organ,  to  the  effect  that 
among  the  Jews  were  found  many  "  intrepid  and  intelli- 
gent soldiers,"  and  that  a  number  of  them  were  awarded 
the  St.  George's  cross  for  gallantry.1 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add  that  one  who  places 
especial  reliance  on  this  kind  of  evidence  must  be 
sure  that  the  admission  is  really  and  not  merely 
apparently  contrary  to  the  interest  of  the  one  who 
gives  it. 

(b)  Another  particularly  valuable  kind  of  evi- 
dence is  negative  evidence,  or  the  evidence  of  silence. 
Whenever  a  witness  fails  to  mention  an  event  which, 
if  it  had  occurred,  would  have  been  of  such  interest 
to  him  that  he  might  reasonably  have  been  expected 
to  have  mentioned  it,  his  silence  upon  the  matter 
becomes  negative  evidence  that  the  event  did  not 
occur.  For  many  years  no  one  suggested  that 
Bacon  wrote  the  Shakespearean  plays ;  this  absence 
of  testimony  to  the  belief  that  Bacon  wrote  them 
is  strong  evidence  that  such  belief  did  not  exist  until 
recently,  a  fact  that  tends  to  discredit  the  Baconian 
theory  of  authorship.  The  fact  that  in  the  writings 
of  Dickens  and  Thackeray  no  mention  is  made  of 
the  bicycle  is  negative  evidence  that  the  bicycle  had 
not  then  come  into  use.  That  Moses  nowhere  in 

1  The  Nation,  June  n,   1908. 

126 


The  Discussion 

his  writings  speaks  of  life  after  death  is  negative 
evidence  that  the  Hebrews  did  not  believe  in  the 
immortality  of  the  soul.  If  admittedly  capable  and 
impartial  officials  do  not  inflict  penalties  for  foul 
playing  during  a  football  game,  there  is  strong  pre- 
sumption that  little  or  no  foul  playing  occurred. 

The  following  paragraph,  taken  from  a  current 
magazine,  shows  how  this  kind  of  evidence  may, be 
handled  very  effectively : — 

A  sharp  controversy  has  been  raging  in  the  European 
press  over  the  question  whether  Gambetta  secretly  vis- 
ited Bismarck  in  1878.  Francis  Laur,  Gambetta's  literary 
executor,  has  published  an  article  asserting  that  he  did, 
and  giving  details  (rather  vague,  it  must  be  admitted)  of 
the  conversation  between  the  two  statesmen.  But  he 
offers  not  a  scrap  of  documentary  proof.  He  is  not  even 
sure  whether  the  interview  took  place  at  Friedrichsruh 
or  at  Varzin.  This  is  rather  disconcerting,  especially  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  Bismarck  never  made  the  slightest 
reference  in  his  reminiscences  or  letters  to  the  visit  of 
Gambetta,  if  it  occurred,  and  that  the  minute  Busch 
never  mentioned  it.1 

Argument  From  Authority. 

There  is  a  particular  kind  of  evidence  frequently 

available  for  debaters   and   argumentative  writers 

known  as  argument  from  authority.    This  evidence 

consists  of  the  opinions  and  decisions  of  men  who 

1  The  Nation,  September  5,  1907. 
127 


The  Discussion 

are  recognized,  to  some  extent  at  least,  as  authorities 
on  the  subjects  of  which  they  speak.  An  eminent 
scientist  might  explain  with  unquestioned  certainty 
the  operation  of  certain  natural  phenomena.  A 
business  man  of  wide  experience  and  with  well 
recognized  insight  into  national  conditions  might 
speak  authoritatively  on  the  causes  of  business 
depressions.  In  religious  matters  the  Bible  is 
the  highest  authority  for  orthodox  Christians;  the 
Koran,  for  Mohammedans.  In  legal  affairs  the 
highest  authorities  are  court  decisions,  opinions  of 
eminent  jurists,  and  the  Constitution.  If  a  certain 
college  president  is  considered  an  authority  in  the 
matter  of  college  discipline,  then  a  quotation  from 
him  on  the  evils  of  hazing  becomes  valuable  evi- 
dence for  the  affirmative  of  the  proposition, 
"  Hazing  should  be  abolished  in  all  colleges." 
If  the  arguer  wishes  to  strengthen  his  evidence,  he 
may  do  so  by  giving  the  president's  reasons  for  con- 
demning hazing;  but  he  then  departs  from  pure 
argument  from  authority.  Pure  argument  from 
authority  does  not  consist  of  a  statement  of  the 
reasons  involved;  it  asserts  that  something  is  true 
because  some  one  who  is  acknowledged  to  be  an 
authority  on  that  subject  says  it  is  true. 
Argument  from  authority  differs  from  other 
128 


The  Discussion 

evidence  in  that  it  involves  not  merely  investigation 
but  also  the  exercise  of  a  high  degree  of  judgment. 
The  statement  that  in  1902,  in  the  United  Kingdom, 
two  hundred  and  ninety-five  communities  of  from 
8,000  to  25,000  inhabitants  were  without  street-car 
lines  is  not  argument  from  authority ;  the  discovery 
of  this  truth  involved  merely  investigation.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  some  reputable  statesman  or 
business  man  should  say  that  street-car  facilities 
in  the  United  States  excelled  those  of  England,  this 
evidence  would  be  argument  from  authority;  only 
through  both  investigation  and  judgment  could  such 
a  statement  be  evolved. 

This  kind  of  evidence  is  very  strong  when  those 
addressed  have  confidence  in  the  integrity,  ability, 
and  judgment  of  the  person  quoted.  If,  however, 
they  do  not  know  him,  or  if  they  do  not  consider 
him  reliable,  the  evidence  is  of  little  value.  There- 
fore, the  test  that  an  arguer  should  apply  before 
using  this  kind  of  evidence  is  as  follows : — 

Is  the  witness  an  acknowledged  authority  on  the 
subject  about  which  he  speaks? 

Sometimes  a  short  statement  showing  why  the 
witness  quoted  is  able  to  speak  wisely  and  con- 
clusively will  render  the  evidence  more  valuable 
in  the   eyes   of   the   audience.    In   the   following 
9  129 


The  Discussion 

example,  notice  how  Judge  James  H.  Blount  used 
"  authority  "  in  proving  that  the  Filipinos  desired 
self-government : — 

Senator  Dubois,  of  Idaho,  who  was  a  member  of  the 
Congressional  party  that  visited  the  Philippines,  has  since 
said  in  the  New  York  "  Independent " :  All  the  Filipinos, 
with  the  exception  of  those  who  were  holding  positions 
under  and  drawing  salaries  from  our  Government,  favor 
a  government  of  their  own.  There  is  scarcely  an  excep- 
tion among  them.  .  .  .  There  is  nobody  in  the  is- 
lands, no  organization  of  any  kind  or  description,  which 
favors  the  policy  of  our  Government  toward  them. 

Senator  Newlands,  of  Nevada,  also  a  member  of  the 
Congressional  party  aforesaid,  has  declared,  in  the  num- 
ber of  this  Review  for  December,  1905,  that  practically 
the  whole  people  desire  independence.  Congressman  Par- 
sons, also  a  member  of  the  same  party,  has  since  said : 
"  There  is  no  question  that  all  the  Filipino  parties  are 
now  in  favor  of  independence." 

Captain  J.  A.  Moss,  of  the  Twenty-fourth  Infantry,  a 
member  of  General  Corbin's  staff,  is  quoted  by  Mr.  Bryan, 
in  the  "  Commoner "  of  April  27th,  1906,  as  saying  in  an 
article  published  in  a  Manila  paper  while  Mr.  Bryan  was 
in  the  islands,  with  reference  to  the  wishes  of  "the  great 
majority"  of  Filipinos,  that  "to  please  them,  we  cannot 
get  out  of  the  islands  too  soon."  l 


II.    REASONING. 

As  has  been  said,  proof  consists  of  evidence  and 
reasoning.     Evidence  has  been  considered  first  be- 

1  North  American  Review,  Vol.  CLXXXIV,  p.  136. 
130 


The  Discussion 

cause  this  order  corresponds  to  the  way  in  which 
proof  is  usually  generated ;  obviously,  the  discovery 
of  facts  precedes  the  process  of  reasoning  which 
shows  their  significance.  In  some  instances,  how- 
ever, this  order  is  reversed:  a  man  may  form  a 
theory  and  then  hunt  for  the  facts  on  which  to  base 
it;  but  in  general,  facts  precede  inferences. 

Since  all  people  when  they  reason  do  not  reach 
the  same  conclusion,  it  is  very  essential  for  a  student 
to  investigate  the  various  processes  of  reasoning. 
Given  exactly  the  same  evidence,  some  men  will 
draw  one  conclusion,  some  another.  A  current 
periodical  recognizes  this  fact  when  it  says: — 

How  widely  divergent  may  be  conclusions  drawn  from 
the  same  source  can  be  judged  by  contrasting  these  two 
statements :  Messrs.  Clark  and  Edgar  declare  that  "  where 
municipal  ownership  has  been  removed  from  the  realm  of 
philosophic  discussion  and  put  to  the  test  of  actual  expe- 
rience it  has  failed  ingloriously " ;  Professor  Parsons  and 
Mr.  Bemis  on  the  contrary  assert,  to  use  Professor  Par- 
sons' words,  "  it  is  not  public  ownership,  but  private  owner- 
ship, that  is  responsible  for  our  periodic  crisis  and  the 
ruin  of  our  industries,"  and  "  it  is  not  impossible  that  the 
elimination  of  the  public  service  corporations  through 
public  ownership  is  one  of  the  things  that  would  do  more 
to  help  along  the  process  of  making  our  cities  fit."  x 

Because  of  the  divergencies  in  the  results  pro- 
duced by  reasoning,  a  student  should  study  with 

JThe  Outlook,  July  27,  1907. 


The  Discussion 

considerable  care  the  various  processes  of  arriving 
at  a  conclusion,  so  that  he  may  be  able  to  tell  what 
methods  are  strong,  what  are  weak,  and  what  are 
fallacious. 

According  to  a  common  classification,  there  are 
two  methods  of  reasoning:  the  inductive  process, 
and  the  deductive  process. 

i.  Inductive  Reasoning.  When  one  carefully 
investigates  his  reasons  for  believing  as  he  does,  he 
often  finds  that  he  accepts  a  certain  statement  as 
true  because  he  is  familiar  with  many  specific  in- 
stances that  tend  to  establish  its  truth.  The  belief 
that  prussic  acid  is  poisonous  is  based  upon  the 
large  number  of  instances  in  which  its  deadly  effect 
has  been  apparent.  The  fact  that  railroad  men  are 
exposed  to  injury  is  unquestioned  because  every  one 
is  familiar  with  the  many  accidents  that  occur  each 
year.  The  statement  that  water  freezes  at  thirty- 
two  degrees  Fahrenheit  has  been  proved  true  by 
innumerable  tests.  This  process  of  reasoning  by 
which,  from  many  specific  instances,  the  truth  of 
a  general  statement  is  established,  is  called  w- 
duction. 

An  example  of  inductive  reasoning  is  found  in 
the  following  passage : — 
132 


The  Discussion 

Does  the  closing  of  the  saloons  affect  appreciably  the 
amount  of  drunkenness  in  the  community?  A  comparison 
of  the  same  town  or  city  in  successive  years  — one  year 
under  one  system,  and  the  next  year  under  the  other  — 
furnishes  a  basis  for  accurate  judgment.  Evidence  of  this 
sort  is  all  one  way,  and  it  seems  to  be  conclusive. 

The  tables  prepared  by  the  Massachusetts  Bureau  of 
Statistics  of  Labor,  in  1905,  under  special  instructions 
from  the  legislature,  show  that  in  Haverhill  the  average 
number  of  arrests  per  month  under  license  was  81.63, 
under  no-license,  26.50;  in  Lynn,  under  license,  315,  under 
no-license,  117.63;  in  Medford,  under  license,  20.12,  under 
no-license,  13.25;  in  Pittsfield,  under  license,  93.25,  un- 
der no-license,  36.75;  and  in  Salem,  under  license,  140.50, 
under  no-license,  29.63.  Such  comparisons  might  be  mul- 
tiplied, but  it  is  unnecessary.  There  is  no  escaping  the 
conclusion  that  the  closing  of  the  saloons,  under  the 
Local  Option  system,  does  sensibly  diminish  the  volume 
of  drunkenness.1 

In  using  inductive  reasoning,  one  must  always 
be  on  his  guard  against  drawing  conclusions  too 
hastily.  It  is  never  correct  to  conclude  from  a  con- 
sideration of  only  a  few  instances  that  a  general 
truth  has  been  discovered.  Further  examination 
may  show  that  the  opinion  first  formed  will  not 
hold.  Some  people  call  all  men  dishonest  because 
several  acquaintances  have  not  kept  faith  with  them. 
Others  are  ready  to  believe  that  because  they  have 
made  money  in  the  stock  market  all  can  do  likewise. 

1  Atlantic  Monthly,  Vol.   XC,  p.   437- 
133 


The  Discussion 

Most  superstitions  arise  through  generalization 
from  too  few  instances:  those  who  have  several 
times  met  misfortune  on  the  thirteenth  day  of  the 
month  are  apt  to  say  that  the  thirteenth  is  always 
an  unlucky  day.  Such  reasoning  as  this  shows  the 
weakness  of  inductive  argument:  a  conclusion  is 
worthless  if  it  is  drawn  from  too  few  examples. 

Professor  Fred  Lewis  Pattee,  in  writing  on 
Errors  in  Reasoning,  says : — 

Children  and  even  adults  often  generalize  from  a  single 
experience.  A  little  boy  cautioned  me  at  one  time  to 
keep  away  from  a  certain  horse,  for  "white  horses  al- 
ways kick."  An  old  Pennsylvania  farmer  laid  down  the 
law  that  shingles  laid  during  the  increase  of  the  moon 
always  curl  up.  He  had  tried  it  once  and  found  out. 
A  friend  will  advise  you  to  take  Blank's  Bitters:  "I 
took  a  bottle  one  spring  and  felt  much  better;  they  al- 
ways cure."  Physicians  base  their  knowledge  of  medi- 
cines upon  the  observations  of  thousands  of  trained 
observers  through  many  years,  and  not  upon  a  single  ex- 
perience. Most  people  are  prone  to  judge  their  neighbors 
from  too  slight  acquaintance.  If  a  man  is  late  at  an 
appointment  twice  in  succession,  someone  is  sure  to  say: 
"  Oh,  he 's  always  late."  This  is  poor  thinking  because 
it  is  bad  judgment.  Judgments  should  be  made  with  care 
and  from  fullness  of  experience.1 

The    following   quotation   illustrates   how    often 

1  The  Adult  Bible  Class  and  Teacher  Training  Monthly,  May, 
1908,  page  295. 

134 


The  Discussion 

hasty   generalizations   create   prejudice   and   sway 
public  judgment : — 

There  is  an  impression  shared  by  many  that  the  rela- 
tion between  the  white  and  black  races  in  this  country 
is  becoming  less  amicable  and  more  and  more  surcharged 
with  injustice.  The  basis  for  this  impression  is  to  be 
found  in  certain  dramatic  and  sensational  events,  in  par- 
ticular the  riots  in  Springfield,  Illinois,  and  in  Atlanta, 
Georgia.  The  memory  of  those  events  is  becoming  faint 
in  many  minds;  but  the  impression  they  created  remains. 
A  dramatic  event  will  have  an  effect  upon  public  opinion 
which  statistics,  more  significant  but  less  picturesque,  will 
altogether  fail  to  produce.  In  the  horror  at  the  brief 
work  of  a  mob  the  diminution  in  the  annual  number  of 
lynchings  is  forgotten. 

The  fundamental  mistake  in  this  is  in  the  picking  out 
of  a  startling  episode  or  a  reckless  utterance  and  regard- 
ing it  as  typical.  We  do  not  arrive  at  the  truth  in  that 
way.  The  Black  Hand  assassin  does  not  furnish  a  true 
index  to  the  Italian  character.  Aaron  Burr  is  not  an 
exhibit  of  the  product  of  American  Puritanism.  So,  if 
we  wish  to  find  out  what  American  democracy  has  done 
with  the  negro,  we  do  not  search,  if  we  are  wise,  into 
the  chain-gang  of  Georgia  or  into  the  slums  of  New 
York.i 

The  value  of  inductive  reasoning  depends  upon 
the  number  of  instances  observed.  Very  seldom  is 
it  possible  to  investigate  every  case  of  the  class 
under  discussion.  Of  course  this  can  sometimes  be 
done.  For  instance,  one  may  be  able  to  state  that 

aThe  Outlook,  April  4,   1908. 

135 


The  Discussion 

all  his  brothers  are  college  graduates,  since  he  can 
speak  authoritatively  concerning  each  one  of  them. 
But  usually  an  examination  of  every  instance  is 
out  of  the  question,  and  whenever  induction  is  based 
on  less  than  all  existing  cases,  it  establishes  only 
probable  truth. 

From  the  foregoing  it  is  seen  that  the  tests  for  in- 
duction are  two : — 

r(l)'  'Have  enough  instances  of  the  class  under 
consideration  been  investigated  to  establish  the 
existence  of  a  general  law? 

(2)  Have  enough  instances  been  investigated  to 
establish  the  probable  existence  of  a  general  law? 

2,  Deductive  reasoning.  Deductive  reasoning 
is  the  method  of  demonstrating  the  truth  of  a  par- 
ticular statement  by  showing  that  some  general 
principle,  which  has  previously  been  established  or 
which  is  admitted  to  be  true,  applies  to  it.  A 
stranger  on  coming  to  the  United  States  might  ask 
whether  our  postal  system  is  a  success.  The  an- 
swer would  perhaps  be,  "Yes,  certainly  it  is,  for 
it  is  maintained  by  the  government,  and  all  our 
government  enterprises  are  successful."  When  the 
metal  thurium  was  discovered,  a  query  doubtless 
arose  as  to  whether  it  was  fusible.  It  was  then 
reasoned  that  since  all  metals  hitherto  known  were 

136 


The  Discussion 

fusible,  and  since  thurium  was  a  metal,  undoubtedly 
it  was  fusible.  Stated  in  clearer  form,  the  reason- 
ing in  each  case  would  be : — 

A.  All  our  government  enterprises  are  success- 
ful, 

B.  The  United  States  postal  system  is  a  govern- 
ment enterprise. 

C.  Therefore  the  United  States  postal  system 
is  successful. 

A.    AH  metals  are  fusible. 
•  B.    Thurium  is  a  metal. 

C.     Therefore  thurium  is  fusible. 

Such  a  series  of  statements  is  called  a  syllogism. 
A  syllogism  always  consists  of  a  major  premise 
(A),  a  minor  premise  (B),  and  a  conclusion  (C). 
The  major  premise  always  states  a  general  law; 
the  minor  premise  shows  that  the  general  law  ap- 
plies to  the  particular  case  under  consideration ;  and 
the  conclusion  is,  in  the  light  of  the  two  premises, 
an  established  truth. 

The  strength  of  deductive  argument  depends  on 
two  things :  the  truth  of  the  premises  and  the  fram- 
ing of  the  syllogism.  The  syllogism  must  always  be 
so  stated  that  a  conclusion  is  derived  from  the 
application  of  a  general  law  to  some  specific  in- 
stance to  which  the  law  obviously  applies.  In  the 
137 


The  Discussion 

next  place,  the  premises  must  be  true.  If  they  are 
only  probably  correct,  the  conclusion  is  a  mere  pre- 
sumption; if  either  one  is  false,  the  conclusion  is 
probably  false.  But  if  the  syllogism  is  correctly 
framed,  and  if  both  premises  are  true,  the  con- 
clusion is  irrefutable.  As  premises  are  facts  that 
have  first  been  established  by  induction,  the  relation 
between  inductive  and  deductive  reasoning  is  very 
close.  In  fact,  deduction  depends  on  induction  for 
its  very  existence.  To  overthrow  a  deductive  argu- 
ment all  that  is  necessary  is  to  show  the  error  in  the 
inductive  process  that  built  up  either  one  or  both  of 
the  premises. 

The  tests  for  deduction  are: — 

(1)  Are  both  premises  true? 

(2)  Is  the  fact  stated  in  the  minor  premise  an 
instance  of  the  general  law  expressed  in  the  major 
premise? 

In  practical  argumentation  it  is  not  always  neces- 
sary or  desirable  to  express  a  deductive  argument  in 
full  syllogistic  form.  One  premise  is  frequently 
omitted;  the  syllogism  thus  shortened  is  called  an 
enthymeme.  The  reasoning  then  takes  some  such 
form  as,  "  This  man  will  fail  in  business  because 
he  is  incompetent."  The  major  premise,  "  All  in- 
competent men  fail  in  business,"  is  understood,  but 

138 


The  Discussion 

is  not  expressed.  The  enthymeme  constitutes  as 
strong  and  forceful  an  argument  as  the  syllogism, 
provided  the  suppressed  premise  is  a  well-established 
fact;  but  whenever  this  premise  is  not  accepted  as 
true,  it  must  be  stated  and  proved.  The  argument 
will  then  consist  of  the  full  syllogistic  process. 

The  following  outline  illustrates  the  chief  differ- 
ence between  induction  and  deduction: — 


The  game  of   football  benefits   the  players  physically, 
because 

(Induction.) 


1.  Football  is  known  to  have  benefited  Henry  Harvey. 

2.  Football  is  known  to  have  benefited  Frank  Barrs. 

3.  Football  is  known  to  have  benefited  Penn  Armstrong. 

(Deduction.) 

1.  The  game  affords  the  player*  regular  exercise: 

2.  The  game  takes  them  out  in  the  open  air.^ 

3.  The  game  develops  the  lungs. 

The  deductive  reasoning  expressed  in  full  would 
be:— 

(i)    A.  All  games  that  afford  the  players  regular  ex- 
ercise benefit  them  physically. 

B.  Football  affords  the  players  regular  exercise. 

C.  Therefore  football  benefits  the  players  physically. 
The  reasoning  given  in  (2)  and  (3)  may  be  expressed 

in  similar  syllogisms. 


139 


The  Discussion 

To  test  the  inductive  part  of  this  argument,  one 
should  determine  how  well  the  three  examples  show 
the  existence  of  a  general  law.  To  test  the  de- 
ductive part,  he  should  ask  whether  the  premises, 
both  those  stated  and  those  suppressed,  are  admitted 
facts,  or  whether  they  need  to  be  proved. 

If  all  reasoning  were  purely  inductive  or  purely 
deductive,  and  if  it  always  appeared  in  as  simple  a 
form  as  in  the  preceding  illustration,  one  would 
have  little  difficulty  in  classifying  and  testing  it. 
But  frequently  the  two  kinds  appear  in  such  obscure 
form  and  in  such  varied  combinations  that  only  an 
expert  logician  can  separate  and  classify  them. 
Because  of  this  difficulty,  it  is  worth  while  to  know 
a  second  method  of  classification,  one  which  is 
often  of  greater  practical  service  than  the  method 
already  discussed  in  assisting  the  arguer  to  de- 
termine what  methods  of  reasoning  are  strong  and 
what  are  weak.  A  knowledge  of  this  classification 
is  also  very  helpful  to  one  who  is  searching  for  ways 
in  which  to  generate  proof.  This  method  considers 
proof  from  the  standpoint  of  its  use  in  practical 
argument ;  it  teaches  not  so  much  the  different  ways 
in  which  the  mind  may  work,  as  the  ways  in  which 
it  must  work  to  arrive  at  a  sound  conclusion. 


140 


The  Discussion 

i.    ARGUMENT  FROM  ANTECEDENT 
PROBABILITY. 

The  process  of  reasoning  from  cause  to  effect  is 
known  as  the  argument  from  antecedent  probability. 
Whenever  a  thinking  man  is  asked  to  believe  a 
statement,  he  is  much  readier  to  accept  it  as  true 
if  some  reasonable  cause  is  assigned  for  the  existence 
of  the  fact  that  is  being  established.  The  argu- 
ment from  antecedent  probability  supplies  this 
cause.  The  reasoning  may  be  from  the  past  toward 
the  present,  or  from  the  present  toward  the  future. 
If  an  inspector  condemns  a  bridge  as  unsafe,  the 
question  arises,  "  What  has  made  it  so  ?  "  If  some 
one  prophesies  a  rise  in  the  price  of  railroad  bonds, 
he  is  not  likely  to  be  believed  unless  he  can  show 
an  adequate  cause  for  the  increase.  In  itself,  the 
establishment  of  a  cause  proves  nothing.  A  bridge 
may  have  been  subjected  to  great  strain  and  still 
be  unimpaired.  Though  at  present  there  may  be 
ample  cause  for  a  future  rise  in  the  securities 
market,  some  other  condition  may  intervene  and 
prevent  its  operation.  The  assignment  of  a  cause 
can  at  best  establish  merely  a  probability,  and  yet 
the  laws  of  cause  and  effect  are  so  fundamental  that 
man  is  usually  loath  to  believe  that  a  condition  exists 
141 


The  Discussion 

or  will  exist,  until  he  knows  what  has  brought  it 
about  or  what  will  bring  it  about.  A  course  of  rea- 
soning which  argues  that  a  proposition  is  true  be- 
cause the  fact  affirmed  is  the  logical  result  of 
some  adequate  cause  is  called  argument  from  ante- 
cedent probability. 

Simple  examples  of  this  kind  of  reasoning  are 
found  in  the  following  sentences :  "  It  will  rain  be- 
cause an  east  wind  is  blowing  " ;  "  As  most  of  our 
officers  in  the  standing  army  have  been  West  Point 
graduates,  the  United  States  military  system  has 
reached  a  high  standard  of  efficiency."  The  follow- 
ing are  more  extended  illustrations : — 

It  appears  to  have  been  fully  established  that,  in  certain 
industries,  various  economies  in  production  —  such  as 
eliminating  cross  freights,  concentrating  the  superintending 
force,  running  best  plants  to  full  capacity,  etc. —  can  be 
made  from  production  on  a  large  scale,  or,  in  other  in- 
stances, through  the  combination  of  different  establish- 
ments favorably  located  in  different  sections  of  the  coun- 
try. It  is,  of  course,  not  to  be  expected  that  any  one 
source  of  saving  will  be  found  applicable  in  all  indus- 
tries, nor  that  the  importance  of  any  will  be  the  same 
in  different  industries ;  but  in  many  industries  enough 
sources  of  saving  will  be  found  to  make  combination 
profitable.  This  statement  does  not  ignore  the  fact  that 
there  may  be,  in  many  instances,  disadvantages  enough  to 
offset  the  benefits;  but  experience  does  seem  to  show 
that,  in  many  cases,  at  least,  the  cost  of  manufacture  and 
distribution  is  materially  lessened, 

142 


The  Discussion 

Granting  that  these  savings  can  be  made,  it  is  evident 
that  the  influence  of  Industrial  Combinations  might  readily 
be  to  lower  prices  to  consumers.1 

In  attempting  to  prove  that  operas  can  be  suc- 
cessfully produced  in  English,  Francis  Rogers 
says : — 

We  have  a  poetic  literature  of  marvelous  richness. 
Only  the  Germans  can  lay  claim  to  a  lyric  wealth  as 
great  as  ours.  The  language  we  inherit  is  an  extraor- 
dinarily rich  one.  A  German  authority  credits  it  with 
a  vocabulary  three  times  as  large  as  that  of  France,  the 
poorest,  in  number  of  words,  of  all  the  great  languages. 
With  such  an  enormous  fund  of  words  to  choose  from 
it  seems  as  if  we  should  be  able  to  express  our  thoughts 
not  only  with  unparalleled  exactness  and  subtlety,  but 
also  with  unequalled  variety  of  sound.  Further  it  is 
probable  that  English  surpasses  the  other  three  great 
languages  of  song,  German,  Italian,  and  French,  in  num- 
ber of  distinguishable  vowel  sounds,  but  in  questions 
of  ear  authorities  usually  differ,  and  it  is  hazardous  to 
claim  in  this  an  indubitable  supremacy.  It  seems  cer- 
tain, however,  that  English  has  rather  more  than  twice 
as  many  vowel  sounds  as  Italian  (the  poorest  language 
in  this  respect),  which  has  only  seven  or  eight.2 

Since  reasoning  from  antecedent  probability  can 
at  best  establish  only  a  strong  presumption,  and 
since  it  is  often  not  of  sufficient  weight  to  accom- 
plish even  this,  an  arguer,  to  be  successful,  must 

1  Jeremiah  W.  Jenks,  North  American   Review,  June,    1901,  page 
907. 

2  Scribner's,  January,   1909,  p.  42. 

143 


The  Discussion 

know  the  tests  that  determine  how  strong  and  how 
weak  an  argument  of  this  sort  is.  He  may  apply 
these  tests  both  to  his  own  reasoning  and  to  the 
reasoning  of  others.  The  first  test  is : — 

(i)  Is  the  assigned  cause  of  sufficient  strength 
to  produce  the  alleged  effect? 

The  significance  of  this  question  is  at  once 
apparent.  In  the  case  of  a  criminal  prosecution,  it 
asks  whether  the  accused  had  sufficient  motive  for 
performing  the  deed.  In  connection  with  political 
and  economic  propositions  that  advocate  a  change 
in  existing  conditions,  this  test  asks  whether  the 
new  method  proposed  is  sufficiently  virile  and  far- 
reaching  actually  to  produce  the  excellent  results 
anticipated.  A  few  years  ago  the  advocates  of  free 
silver  were  maintaining  that  "  sixteen  to  one " 
would  be  a  sure  cure  for  all  poverty  and  financial 
distress.  A  careful  application  of  this  test  would 
have  materially  weakened  such  an  argument.  Be- 
lievers in  reformatory  rather  than  punitive  methods 
of  imprisonment  say  it  is  antecedently  probable  that 
kind  treatment,  healthful  surroundings,  and  instruc- 
tion in  various  directions  will  reclaim  most  criminals 
to  an  honest  life.  Before  accepting  or  rejecting 
this  argument,  one  should  decide  in  his  own  mind 
whether  or  not  such  treatment  is  adequate  to  make 
144 


The  Discussion 

a  released   convict   give   up   his   former   criminal 
practices. 

If  the  argument  stands  the  first  test,  the  next 
question  to  ask  is : — 

(2)  May  some  other  cause  intervene  and  pre- 
vent the  action  of  the  assigned  cause? 

During  the  spring  of  1908  it  was  generally  known 
that  the  Erie  Railroad  had  no  money  with  which  to 
pay  the  interest  that  was  about  due  on  its  outstand- 
ing bonds.  Wall  Street  prophesied  that  the  road 
would  go  into  a  receiver's  hands.  This  result  was 
extremely  probable.  Mr.  Harriman,  however,  presi- 
dent of  the  Union  Pacific,  stepped  in  and  by  ar- 
ranging for  the  payment  of  the  interest  saved  the 
road  from  bankruptcy.  This  was  an  example  of 
how  an  intervening  cause  prevented  the  action  of 
the  assigned  cause.  When  Congress  passed  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution,  many 
people  said  that  this  legislation  would  inevitably 
cause  the  social,  political,  and  financial  ruin  of  the 
whole  South.  Since  they  did  not  take  into  con- 
sideration the  intervening  action  of  another  cause, 
namely,  drastic  measures  for  negro  disfranchise- 
ment  by  the  white  inhabitants  of  the  South,  their 
reasoning  from  antecedent  probability  was  entirely 
erroneous. 

10  145 


The  Discussion 

2.    ARGUMENT  FROM  SIGN. 

Argument  from  effect  to  cause.  The  process  of 
reasoning  from  effect  to  cause  is  called  argument 
from  sign.  Since  every  circumstance  must  be  the 
result  of  some  preceding  circumstance,  the  arguer 
tries  to  find  the  cause  of  some  fact  that  is  known  to 
exist,  and  thereby  to  establish  the  existence  of  a 
hitherto  unknown  fact.  For  instance,  when  one 
sees  a  pond  frozen  over,  he  is  likely  to  reason  back 
to  the  cause  of  this  condition  and  decide  that  there 
has  been  a  fall  in  temperature,  a  fact  that  he  may 
not  have  known  before.  The  sight  of  smoke  indi- 
cates the  presence  of  fire.  Human  footprints  in 
the  snow  are  undoubted  proof  that  someone  has 
been  present. 

In  the  following  quotation,  the  recent  prohibition 
movement  in  the  South  is  said  to  be  a  sign  that  the 
voters  wish  to  keep  liquor  away  from  the  negro : — 

What  is  the  cause  of  this  drift  toward  prohibition  in 
the  South?  The  obvious  cause,  and  the  one  most  often 
given  in  explanation,  is  the  presence  of  the  negro.  It  is 
said  that  the  vote  for  prohibition  in  the  South  represents 
exactly  the  same  reasoning  which  excludes  liquor  from 
Indian  reservations,  shuts  it  out  by  international  agree- 
ment from  the  islands  of  the  Pacific,  and  excludes  it  from 
great  areas  in  Africa  under  the  British  flag;  and  that, 

146 


The  Discussion 

wherever  there  is  an  undeveloped  race,  the  reasons  for 
restrictions  upon  the  liquor  traffic  become  convincing.1 

The  strength  of  this  kind  of  reasoning  depends 
upon  the  closeness  of  the  connection  between  the 
effect  and  the  assigned  cause.  In  testing  argument 
from  sign,  one  should  ask : — 

(1)  Is  the  cause  assigned  adequate  to  produce 
the  observed  effect? 

This  test  is  precisely  the  same  as  the  test  of  ade- 
quacy for  antecedent  probability.  One  could  not 
maintain  that  the  productiveness  of  a  certain  piece 
of  ground  was  due  entirely  to  the  kind  of  fertilizer 
used  on  it,  nor  that  a  national  financial  upheaval  was 
caused  by  the  failure  of  a  single  unimportant  bank. 
In  each  of  these  cases  the  cause  suggested  may  have 
assisted  in  producing  the  result,  but  obviously  it  was 
not  of  itself  adequate  to  be  the  sole  cause. 

(2)  Could  the  observed  effect  have  resulted  from 
any  other  cause  than  the  one  assigned? 

If  several  possible  causes  exist,  then  it  is  necessary 
to  consider  them  all,  and  show  that  all  the  causes 
except  the  assigned  cause  did  not  produce  the  ob- 
served effect.  If  an  employer  who  has  been  robbed 
discovers  that  one  of  his  clerks  has  suddenly  come 

1  Atlantic  Monthly,  May,  1908,  p.  632. 


147 


The  Discussion 

into  possession  of  a  large  sum  of  money,  he  may 
surmise  that  his  clerk  is  a  thief.  This  argument 
is  valueless,  however,  unless  he  can  show  that  his 
employee  did  not  receive  his  newly  acquired  wealth 
through  inheritance,  fortunate  investment,  or  some 
other  reasonable  method.  But  if  no  other  reason 
than  burglary  or  embezzlement  can  explain  the  pres- 
ence of  this  money,  the  argument  is  very  strong. 

One  might  greatly  weaken  the  argument  (quoted 
on  page  146)  which  assigned  the  cause  of  the  recent 
prohibition  movement  in  the  South  to  the  presence 
of  the  negro  by  showing  that  this  action  was  not  the 
result  of  the  assigned  cause,  but  largely  of  another 
cause.  He  might  prove  that  during  the  debate  in 
the  Georgia  Legislature  upon  the  pending  prohibi- 
tory bill,  the  negro  was  not  once  mentioned  as  a 
reason  for  the  enactment  of  prohibition;  and  that 
the  chief  arguments  in  favor  of  prohibition  were 
based  upon  the  fact  that  the  saloon  element  had 
formed  a  political  ring  in  the  South  and  were 
controlling  the  election  of  sheriffs,  mayors,  alder- 
men, and  legislators. 

Argument   from   effect  to   effect.    Argument 

from  sign  also  includes  the  process  of  reasoning 

from   effect   to   effect   through   a   common   cause. 

This  method  consists  of  combining  the  process  just 

148 


The  Discussion 

described  with  the  argument  from  antecedent  prob- 
ability. A  reduction  of  wages  in  one  cotton  mill 
is  a  sign  that  there  may  be  a  reduction  in  other 
cotton  mills.  Here  the  reasoning  goes  from  effect 
to  effect,  passing,  however,  though  perhaps  the 
reasoner  is  not  aware  that  the  process  is  so  com- 
plex, through  a  cause  common  to  both  effects.  In 
full,  the  reasoning  would  be :  a  reduction  in  the  first 
mill  is  the  result  of  the  cause  "  hard  times  " ;  it  is 
then  antecedently  probable  that  this  cause  will  pro- 
duce a  similar  reduction  of  wages  in  other  mills. 

This  method  may  be  represented  by  the  following 
figure : — 

Cause 


Effect  Effect 


Only  one  effect  is  known;  the  other  effect  is 
inferred,  first,  by  a  process  of  reasoning  from  a 
known  effect  to  an  unknown  cause,  and  secondly, 
by  the  process  of  reasoning  from  this  assumed  cause 
to  an  unknown  effect. 

149 


The  Discussion 

This  method  of  reasoning  is  sound  and  legitimate 
when  both  effects  have  the  same  cause.  Its  weak- 
ness lies  in  the  fact  that  it  may  be  attacked  on  two 
sides:  on  the  reasoning  from  effect  to  cause,  and 
on  the  reasoning  from  cause  to  effect.  If  the  con- 
nection can  be  broken  in  either  process,  the  argu- 
ment is  overthrown.  The  tests  to  be  used  have 
already  been  given. 

3.  ARGUMENT  FROM  EXAMPLE. 

Argument  from  example  is  the  name  given  to 
the  process  by  which  one  reasons  that  what  has  been 
true  under  certain  circumstances  will  again  be  true 
under  the  same  or  similar  circumstances.  In  us- 
ing this  method  of  reasoning  one  argues  that  when- 
ever several  persons  or  things  or  conditions  are 
alike  in  some  respects,  any  given  cause  operating 
upon  them  will  in  each  case  produce  the  same  ef- 
fect ;  any  line  of  action  adopted  by  them  will  in  each 
case  have  the  same  result. 

There  are  two  divisions  of  argument  from  ex- 
ample. When  the  resemblance  between  the  things 
compared  is  close,  the  process  is  called  argument  by 
generalization;  when  the  resemblance  is  so  slight 
that  there  can  be  no  direct  comparison,  but  only  a 
ISO 


The  Discussion 

comparison  of  functions,  the  process  is  called  argu- 
ment from  analogy. 

Argument  by  generalization.  If  one  finds  that 
a  certain  mastiff  becomes  with  training  an  excellent 
watch  dog,  he  may  reasonably  take  it  for  granted 
that  training  will  produce  the  same  result  in  another 
dog  of  the  same  breed.  If  a  college  student  with 
certain  pronounced  physical  and  mental  character- 
istics is  known  to  be  an  exceptionally  good  football 
player,  the  athletic  trainer  is  sure  to  reason  by 
generalization  that  another  student  with  these  same 
characteristics  would  be  a  valuable  addition  to  the 
team.  Burke  in  his  Speech  on  Conciliation  uses 
this  kind  of  reasoning  when  he  says  that  just  as 
Turkey  and  Spain  have  found  it  necessary  to  govern 
their  distant  possessions  with  a  loose  rein,  so,  too, 
England  will  be  obliged  to  govern  the  American 
Colonies  leniently. 

Benjamin  Harrison  used  this  method  of  argu- 
ment in  the  following  quotation: — 

That  we  give  back  to  Porto  Rico  all  the  revenue  de- 
rived from  the  customs  we  levy,  does  not  seem  to  me  to 
soften  our  dealings  with  her  people.  Our  fathers  were 
not  mollified  by  the  suggestion  that  the  tea  and  stamp 
taxes  would  be  expended  wholly  for  the  benefit  of  the 
colonies.  It  is  to  say:  We  do  not  need  this  money;  it 
is  only  levied  to  show  that  your  country  is  no  part  of 


The  Discussion 

the  United  States,  and  that  you  are  not  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  save  at  our  pleasure.1 

Argument  by  generalization  very  rarely  consti- 
tutes absolute  proof.  In  dealing  with  things,  it  may 
do  so  in  rare  cases ;  in  dealing  with  human  actions, 
almost  never.  The  reason  why  it  can  establish  only 
a  strong  probability  lies  in  a  weakness  in  the  process 
of  reasoning. 

Notice  that  while  this  kind  of  argument  appar- 
ently reasons  directly  from  the  example  cited  to 
the  case  in  hand,  there  is  in  reality  an  intermediate 
step.  This  step  is  a  general  truth  of  which  both 
the  known  fact  and  the  fact  to  be  proved  must  be 
instances.  When  it  is  argued  that  since  one  mastiff 
makes  a  good  watch  dog  another  mastiff  will  also 
make  a  good  watch  dog,  the  reasoning  passes 
through  the  general  statement,  "  All  mastiffs  make 
good  watch  dogs." 

Graphically   the   process   might   be   represented 

thus : — 

General  Law 


Known  Fact  Fact  to  be  Proved 

1  North  American  Review,  January,   1901,  p.  17. 
152 


The  Discussion 

This  method  is  very  much  like  the  method  of 
reasoning  from  effect  to  effect,  except  that  here  the 
intermediate  step  does  not  cause,  but  merely  accounts 
for  the  facts.  In  the  illustration  taken  from  Burke, 
the  known  fact  is  that  neither  Turkey  nor  Spain 
can  govern  their  distant  provinces  despotically. 
The  general  law  is  that  no  country  can  govern  a 
distant  dependency  harshly.  The  fact  proved  is 
that  England  cannot  play  the  despot  with  the  Ameri- 
can Colonies. 

The  weakness  of  this  sort  of  reasoning  is  now 
easily  seen.  In  the  first  place,  there  are  few  general 
laws  governing  human  action  that  always  hold  true. 
In  the  second  place,  unless  there  is  a  very  strong 
resemblance  between  the  cases  compared,  unless 
they  are  alike  in  all  essential  particulars,  they  will 
not  both  be  examples  of  the  working  of  one  general 
law. 

The  following  quotation  points  out  an  error  that 
might  be  made  from  too  hasty  reasoning  by  ex- 
ample : — 

On  August  23d  the  Southern  Railway,  which  since  1902 
had  been  paying  5  per  cent,  annual  dividends  on  its  pre- 
ferred stock,  voted  to  reduce  those  dividends  from  a  5 
per  cent,  annual  rate  to  one  of  3.  Five  days  later,  on 
August  28th,  the  Erie  Railroad,  which  had  been  paying 
4  per  cent  .  .  .  announced  that  it  would  pay  no 

153 


The  Discussion 

cash  dividend  this  time,  but  would  issue  to  the  amount 
of  the  usual  4  per  cent,  dividend,  what  it  called  dividend 
warrants,  which  were  practically  notes  at  4  per  cent,  re- 
deemable in  cash  in  1907. 

It  was  natural  that  this  action  regarding  dividends 
should  have  awakened  much  uneasiness.  .  .  .  To 
predict  a  similar  cutting  of  dividends  by  other  railway 
companies  would,  however,  be  unwarranted.  The  case  of 
the  Southern  Railway  and  the  Erie  was  peculiar.  Each 
had  been  classed  among  the  financially  weak  railways  of 
the  country.  Both  were  reorganized  from  absolute  rail- 
way wrecks,  and  in  each  the  new  scheme  of  capitalization 
was  proposed  to  the  markets  at  a  time  when  recovery 
from  the  depression  of  1893  had  not  made  such  progress 
as  it  had  achieved  when  the  greater  companies,  like  the 
Union  Pacific,  were  reorganized.  The  result  was  that, 
with  both  these  railways,  provisions  of  working  capital 
and  adjustment  of  liabilities  to  the  possible  needs  of  an 
active  industrial  future  were  inadequately  made.1 

An  excellent  illustration  of  how  to  refute  argu- 
ment by  generalization  is  found  in  the  following 
quotation.  It  has  been  said  that  since  England 
finds  free  trade  beneficial,  the  United  States  should 
adopt  the  same  policy.  Mr,  Reed,  a  leading  advo- 
cate of  protection,  points  out  the  weakness  of  this 
argument. 

According  to  the  usual  story  that  is  told,  England  had 
been  engaged  with  a  long  and  vain  struggle  with  the 
demon  of  protection,  and  had  been  year  after  year  sinking 
farther  into  the  depths,  until  at  a  moment  when  she 

1  Alexander  D.  Noyes,  The  Forum,  October-December,  1907,  p. 
198. 

154 


The  Discussion 

was  in  her  distress  and  saddest  plight,  her  manufacturing 
system  broke  down,  "protection,  having  destroyed  home 
trade  by  reducing,"  as  Mr.  Atkinson  says,  "  the  entire  pop- 
ulation to  beggary,  destitution,  and  want."  Mr.  Cobden 
and  his  friends  providentially  appeared,  and  after  a  hard 
struggle  established  a  principle  for  all  time  and  for  all 
the  world,  and  straightway  England  enjoyed  the  sum  of 
human  happiness.  Hence  all  good  nations  should  do  as 
England  has  done  and  be  happy  ever  after. 

Suppose  England,  instead  of  being  a  little  island  in  the 
sea,  had  been  the  half  of  a  great  continent  full  of  raw 
material,  capable  of  an  internal  commerce  which  would 
rival  the  commerce  of  all  the  rest  of  the  world. 

Suppose  every  year  new  millions  were  flocking  to  her 
shores,  and  every  one  of  those  new  millions  in  a  few 
years,  as  soon  as  they  tasted  the  delights  of  a  broader 
life,  would  become  as  great  a  consumer  as  any  one  of  her 
own  people. 

Suppose  that  these  millions,  and  the  70,000,000  already 
gathered  under  the  folds  of  her  flag,  were  every  year 
demanding  and  receiving  a  higher  wage  and  therefore 
broadening  her  market  as  fast  as  her  machinery  could 
furnish  production.  Suppose  she  had  produced  cheap  food 
beyond  all  her  wants,  and  that  her  laborers  spent  so 
much  money  that  whether  wheat  was  sixty  cents  a  bushel 
or  twice  that  sum  hardly  entered  the  thoughts  of  one  of 
them  except  when  some  democratic  tariff  bill  was  paralyz- 
ing his  business. 

Suppose  that  she  was  not  only  but  a  cannon  shot  from 
France,  but  that  every  country  in  Europe  had  been  brought 
as  near  to  her  as  Baltimore  is  to  Washington  —  for  that 
is  what  cheap  ocean  freights  mean  between  us  and  Euro- 
pean producers.  Suppose  all  those  countries  had  her  ma- 
chinery, her  skilled  workmen,  her  industrial  system,  and 
labor  forty  per  cent,  cheaper.  Suppose  under  that  state 
of  facts,  with  all  her  manufactures  proclaiming  against 

155 


The  Discussion 

it,  frantic  in  their  disapproval,  England  had  been  called  ' 
upon  by  Cobden  to  make  the  plunge  into  free  trade,  would 
she  have  done  it?    Not  if  Cobden  had  been  backed  by 
the  angelic  host.    History  gives  England  credit  for  great 
sense.1 

Argument  from  analogy.  When  two  instances 
of  objects  which  are  unlike  in  themselves,  but  which 
perform  similar  functions  or  have  similar  relations, 
are  compared  for  the  sake  of  showing  that  what  is 
true  in  one  case  is  true  in  the  other,  the  process 
is  called  argument  from  analogy.  The  following 
quotation  is  a  good  illustration  of  this  kind  of  argu- 
ment : — 

"Mr.  Pinchot  compared  our  present  consumption  of 
wood  to  the  case  of  a  man  in  an  open  boat  at  sea,  cut 
adrift  from  some  shipwreck  and  with  but  a  few  days' 
supply  of  water  on  board.  He  drinks  all  the  water  the 
first  day,  simply  because  he  is  thirsty,  though  he  knows 
that  the  water  will  not  last  long.  The  American  people 
know  that  their  wood  supply  will  last  but  a  few  decades. 
Yet  they  shut  their  eyes  to  the  facts." 

Water  and  wood  are  not  alike  in  themselves; 
they  cannot  be  directly  compared,  but  they  are 
alike  in  the  relations  they  bear  to  other  circum- 
stances. 

When  President  Lincoln  refused  to  change  gener- 
als at  a  certain  time  during  the  Civil  War,  saying 

1  Thomas  B.  Reed,  Speech  in  House  of  Representatives,  Feb.  i, 
1904. 

156 


The  Discussion 

that  it  was  not  wise  to  "  swap  horses  while  crossing 
a  stream,"  he  reasoned  from  analogy.  Since  the 
horse  in  taking  its  master  across  the  stream  and  the 
general  in  conducting  a  campaign  are  totally  unlike 
in  themselves  but  have  similar  relations,  the  argu- 
ment is  from  analogy  and  not  from  generalization. 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  such  reasoning  never  con- 
stitutes indubitable  proof.  If  argument  from 
generalization,  where  the  objects  compared  differ 
from  each  other  in  only  a  few  respects,  is  weak, 
plainly,  argument  from  analogy  is  much  weaker, 
since  the  objects  are  alike  merely  in  the  relations 
they  bear. 

Though  argument  from  analogy  does  not  con- 
stitute proof,  yet  it  is  often  valuable  as  a  means  of 
illustration.  Truths  frequently  need  illumination 
more  than  verification,  and  in  such  cases  this  sort 
of  comparison  may  be  very  useful.  Many  prov- 
erbs are  condensed  arguments  from  analogy,  their 
strength  depending  upon  the  similarity  between  the 
known  case  and  the  case  in  hand.  It  is  not  hard  to 
find  the  analogy  in  these  expressions :  "  Lightning 
never  strikes  twice  in  the  same  place " ;  "  Don't 
count  your  chickens  before  they  are  hatched " ;  "A 
fool  and  his  money  are  soon  parted." 

The  student  who  has  carefully  read  this  chapter 


The  Discussion 

up  to  this  point  should  have  a  fairly  clear  idea 
of  the  nature  of  proof;  he  should  know  that  proof 
consists  of  evidence  and  reasoning;  he  should  know* 
the  tests  for  each  of  these;  and  he  should  be  able 
to  distinguish  between  strong  and  weak  arguments. 
The  next  step  for  him  to  take  will  be  to  apply  these 
instructions  in  generating  proof  for  any  statement 
that  he  wishes  to  establish. 

A  common  fault  in  argumentation  is  the  failure 
to  support  important  points  with  sufficient  proof. 
One  or  two  points  well  established  will  go  farther 
toward  inducing  belief  in  a  proposition  than  a 
dozen  points  that  are  but  weakly  substantiated.  A 
statement  should  be  proved  not  only  by  inductive 
reasoning,  but,  if  possible,  by  deductive.  If  one 
uses  argument  from  antecedent  probability  in  estab- 
lishing a  statement,  he  should  not  rest  content  with 
this  one  method  of  proof,  but  he  should  try  also  to 
use  argument  from  sign,  and  argument  from  ex- 
ample, and,  whenever  he  can,  he  should  quote 
authority. 

Notice  that  in  the  following  outline  three  kinds 
of  proof  are  used.  The  amount  of  proof  here  given 
is  by  no  means  sufficient  to  establish  the  truth  of 
the  proposition  being  upheld;  the  outline,  however, 

158 


The  Discussion 

does  illustrate  the  proper  method  of  building  up  the 
proof  of  a  proposition. 

The  present  condition  of  the  United  States  Sen- 
ate is  deplorable. 

Antecedent  Probability. 
I.     The  present  method  of  electing  Senators  is 

ample  cause  for  such  a  condition,  since 
A.     Senators    are    not    responsible    to    any 
one,  as 

1.  They  are  not  responsible  to  the  peo- 

ple, for 
a.     The  people  do  not  elect  them. 

2.  They  are  not  responsible  to  the  legis- 

lature, for 

a.     The  legislature  changes  inside  of 
six  years. 

Sign. 

II.     There  is  ample  evidence  to  prove  that  the 
condition  is  deplorable. 

A.  States    are   often    unrepresented    in    the 

Senate.     (Haynes'    Election    of    Sen- 
ators, page  158.) 

B.  Many   Senators  have   fallen  into  disre- 

pute, for 

159 


The  Discussion 

I.  One  out  of  every  ten  members  of  the 
Fifty-eighth  Congress  had  been  be- 
fore the  courts  on  criminal 
charges.  (Harper's  Weekly,  Vol. 
XLIV,  page  113.) 

C.  Many  Senators  have  engaged  in  fist 
fights  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  Cham- 
ber. 

Authority. 

III.  Prominent  men  testify  to  its  deplorable  con- 
dition. (A.  M.  Low,  North  American  Re- 
view, Vol.  CLXXIV,  page  231 ;  D.  G.  Phil- 
lips, Cosmopolitan,  Vol.  XL,  page  487.  \ 

PERSUASION. 

Though  it  has  been  stated  in  a  previous  chapter 
that  the  persuasive  portions  of  an  argument  should 
be  found  for  the  most  part  in  the  introduction  and 
the  conclusion,  still  persuasion  in  the  discussion  is 
extremely  important.  It  is  true  that  the  real  work 
of  the  discussion  is  to  prove  the  proposition;  but 
if  conviction  alone  be  used,  there  is  great  danger, 
in  most  cases,  that  the  arguer  will  weary  his  audi- 
ence, lose  their  attention,  and  thus  fail  to  drive 
home  the  ideas  that  he  wishes  them  to  adopt.  Since 
160 


The  Discussion 

everything  depends  upon  how  the  arguer  has  al- 
ready treated  his  subject,  and  how  it  has  been  re- 
ceived by  the  audience,  specific  directions  for  per- 
suasion in  the  discussion  cannot  possibly  be  given. 
Suggestions  in  regard  to  this  matter  must  be  even 
more  abstract  and  general  than  were  the  directions 
for  persuasion  in  the  introduction. 

To  begin  with,  persuasion  in  the  discussion  should 
usually  be  of  a  supplementary  nature.  Unless  the 
arguer  has  won  the  attention  and,  to  some  extent  at 
least,  the  good  will  of  his  audience  before  he  com- 
mences upon  his  proof,  he  may  as  well  confess 
failure  and  proceed  no  farther.  If,  however,  the 
persuasiveness  of  his  introduction  has  accomplished 
the  purpose  for  which  it  exists,  he  may  introduce 
his  proof  without  hesitation,  taking  care  all  the 
time  to  interweave  enough  persuasion  to  main- 
tain the  favorable  impression  that  he  has  already 
made. 

In  general,  the  directions  for  doing  this  are  the 
same  as  those  for  securing  persuasion  in  the  intro- 
duction. In  both  divisions  modesty,  fairness,  and 
sincerity,  are  the  characteristics  that  make  for  suc- 
cess. The  same  conditions  that  demand  these 
qualities  in  one  place  require  their  use  throughout 
the  whole  argument.  Then,  too,  it  is  often  effec- 
ii  161 


The  Discussion 

tive  to  make  occasionally  an  appeal  to  some  strong 
emotion.  As  a  rule,  the  attitude  of  the  modern 
audience  is  essentially  one  of  indifference,  of  so 
great  indifference  that  special  effort  must  be  made 
first  to  gain,  then  to  hold,  their  attention.  The 
direct  emotional  appeal,  when  the  subject,  the  oc- 
casion, and  the  audience  are  such  that  there  is  no 
danger  of  its  being  ludicrous,  will  usually  accom- 
plish this  result.  If  such  a  method,  however,  is 
manifestly  out  of  place,  other  means  must  be  sought 
for  producing  a  similar  effect. 

One  of  the  very  commonest  devices  for  gaining 
attention  is  to  relate  a  short  anecdote.  Everybody 
enjoys  a  good  story,  and  if  it  is  chosen  with  proper 
regard  for  its  illustrative  value,  the  argument  is 
sure  to  be  strengthened.  On  the  whole,  humorous 
stories  are  best.  They  often  relieve  the  tedium  of 
an  otherwise  dry  speech,  and  not  only  serve  as  per- 
suasion, but  drive  home  a  point  with  greater  em- 
phasis than  could  the  most  elaborate  course  of 
reasoning.  This  method  is  so  familiar  to  every  one 
that  detailed  explanation  is  unnecessary.  Owing 
to  the  limited  amount  of  time  at  their  command, 
student  debaters  can,  as  a  rule,  use  only  the  very 
shortest  stories,  and  these  should  be  chosen  for  their 
illustrative  rather  than  for  their  persuasive  value; 
162 


The  Discussion 

in  written  arguments  greater  latitude  is  possible. 
Another  method  that  often  finds  favor  in  both 
written  and  spoken  arguments  is  the  introduction 
of  a  paragraph  showing  the  importance  of  the  topic 
under  consideration.  Oftentimes  the  arguer  can 
show  that  this  particular  phase  of  the  subject  is  of 
wider  significance  than  at  first  appears.  Perhaps  he 
can  draw  a  picture  that  will  turn  a  seemingly  uninter- 
esting and  commonplace  subject  into  one  that  is 
teeming  with  romance  and  wonderment.  For  ex- 
ample, consider  the  following  extract  from  Burke's 
speech  on  Conciliation  with  the  American  Col- 
onies : — 

This  is  the  relative  proportion  of  the  importance  of  the 
colonies  at  these  two  periods:  and  all  reasoning  concern- 
ing our  mode  of  treating  them  must  have  this  proportion 
as  its  basis;  or  it  is  a  reasoning  weak,  rotten  and  sophis- 
tical. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  cannot  prevail  on  myself  to  hurry  over 
this  great  consideration.  It  is  good  for  us  to  be  here. 
We  stand  where  we  have  an  immense  view  of  what  is, 
and  what  is  passed.  Clouds,  indeed,  and  darkness  rest 
upon  the  future.  Let  us,  however,  before  we  descend 
from  this  noble  eminence,  reflect  that  this  growth  of  our 
national  prosperity  has  happened  within  the  short  period 
of  the  life  of  man.  It  has  happened  within  sixty-eight 
years.  There  are  those  alive  whose  memory  might  touch 
the  two  extremities.  For  instance,  my  Lord  Bathurst 
might  remember  all  the  stages  of  the  progress.  He  was 
in  1704  of  an  age  at  least  to  be  made  to  comprehend 
such  things.  He  was  then  old  enough  acta  parentum  jam 

163 


The  Discussion 

leg  ere,  et  quae  sit  poterit  cognoscere  virtus.  Suppose, 
sir,  that  the  angel  of  this  auspicious  youth,  foreseeing 
the  many  virtues  which  made  him  one  of  the  most  amiable, 
as  he  is  one  of  the  most  fortunate,  men  of  his  age, 
had  opened  to  him  in  vision,  that  when  in  the  fourth 
generation  the  third  prince  of  the  House  of  Brunswick 
had  sat  twelve  years  on  the  throne  of  that  nation  which 
(by  the  happy  issue  of  moderate  and  healing  counsels)  was 
to  be  made  Great  Britain,  he  should  see  his  son,  Lord 
Chancellor  of  England,  turn  back  the  current  of  hered- 
itary dignity  to  its  fountain  and  raise  him  to  an  higher 
rank  of  peerage,  whilst  he  enriched  the  family  with  a 
new  one; — if,  amidst  these  bright  and  happy  scenes  of 
domestic  honor  and  prosperity,  that  angel  should  have 
drawn  up  the  curtain  and  unfolded  the  rising  glories 
of  his  country,  and,  whilst  he  was  gazing  with  admiration 
on  the  then  commercial  grandeur  of  England,  the  genius 
should  point  out  to  him  a  little  speck,  scarcely  visible  in 
the  mass  of  the  national  interests,  a  small  seminal  prin- 
ciple rather  than  a  formed  body,  and  should  tell  him,— 
"  Young  man,  there  is  America,  which  at  this  day  serves 
for  little  more  than  to  amuse  you  with  stories  of  savage 
men  and  uncouth  manners;  yet  shall,  before  you  taste 
of  death,  show  itself  equal  to  the  whole  of  that  com- 
merce which  now  attracts  the  envy  of  the  world.  What- 
ever England  has  been  growing  to  by  a  progressive  in- 
crease of  improvement,  brought  in  by  varieties  of  people, 
by  succession  of  civilizing  conquests  and  civilizing  settle- 
ments in  a  series  of  seventeen  hundred  years,  you  shall 
see  as  much  added  to  her  by  America  in  the  course  of  a 
single  life!"  If  this  state  of  his  country  had  been  fore- 
told to  him,  would  it  not  require  all  the  sanguine  credulity 
of  youth  and  all  the  fervid  glow  of  enthusiasm  to  make 
him  believe  it?  Fortunate  man,  he  has  lived  to  see  it! 
Fortunate  indeed,  if  he  lives  to  see  nothing  that  shall 

164 


The  Discussion 

vary    the    prospect    and    cloud    the    setting    of    his    day! 
Excuse  me,  sir,  if,  turning  from  such  thoughts,  I  re- 
sume this  comparative  view  once  more.1 

These  devices  an  arguer  will  often  find  helpful 
for  bringing  an  element  of  persuasion  into  his  proof, 
but  he  should  aim  at  a  type  of  persuasion  much 
more  effective,  yet  much  harder  to  attain,  than  is 
the  result  of  any  mere  device.  Proof  is  the  stron- 
gest when  each  separate  bit  of  it  appeals  both  to 
the  reason  and  the  emotions.  If  an  arguer  can 
connect  his  subject  with  the  feelings  of  his  audience 
and  then  introduce  reasoning  processes  that  will  at 
the  same  time  both  convince  them  and  play  upon 
their  feelings,  he  is  certain  to  attain  a  large  measure 
of  success.  Although  not  all  subjects  readily  lend 
themselves  to  this  method  of  treatment,  yet  if  the 
debater  will  go  to  the  very  bottom  of  his  subject 
and  consider  the  real  significance  of  the  question 
he  is  arguing  upon,  he  can  usually  succeed  in  mak- 
ing his  conviction  persuasive  and  his  persuasion 
convincing.  Undoubtedly  the  best  way  for  a  stu- 
dent to  train  himself  in  this  respect  is  to  study  great 
arguments.  The  following  quotation  from  Beech- 
er's  speech  in  Liverpool,  delivered  before  an  audi- 

1  Speech  in  House  of  Commons,  March  22,  1775. 

165 


The  Discussion 

ence  composed  mostly  of  men  engaged  in  manufac- 
turing, is  an  excellent  example  of  persuasive 
proof : — 

The  things  required  for  prosperous  labor,  prosperous 
manufactures,  and  prosperous  commerce  are  three :  first, 
liberty;  secondly,  liberty;  thirdly,  liberty  —  but  these  are 
not  merely  the  same  liberty,  as  I  shall  show  you. 

First,  there  must  be  liberty  to  follow  those  laws  of 
business  which  experience  has  developed,  without  imposts 
or  restrictions,  or  governmental  intrusions.  Business  sim- 
ply wants  to  be  let  alone. 

Then,  secondly,  there  must  be  liberty  to  distribute  and 
exchange  products  of  industry  in  any  market  without 
burdensome  tariffs,  without  imposts,  and  without  vexatious 
regulations.  There  must  be  these  two  liberties  —  liberty 
to  create  wealth,  as  the  makers  of  it  think  best  according 
to  the  light  and  experience  which  business  has  given 
them ;  and  then  liberty  to  distribute  what  they  have  created 
without  unnecessary  vexatious  burdens.  The  comprehen- 
sive law  of  the  ideal  industrial  condition  of  the  world 
is  free  manufacture  and  free  trade. 

I  have  said  there  were  three  elements  of  liberty.  The 
third  is  the  necessity  of  an  intelligent  and  free  race  of 
customers.  There  must  be  freedom  among  producers; 
there  must  be  freedom  among  the  distributors;  there 
must  be  freedom  among  the  customers.  It  may  not  have 
occurred  to  you  that  it  makes  any  difference  what  one's 
customers  are;  but  it  does,  in  all  regular  and  prolonged 
business.  The  condition  of  the  customer  determines  how 
much  he  will  buy,  determines  of  what  sort  he  will  buy. 
Poor  and  ignorant  people  buy  little  and  that  of  the  poor- 
est kind.  The  richest  and  the  intelligent,  having  the  more 
means  to  buy,  buy  the  most,  and  always  buy  the  best. 

Here,  then,  are  the  three  liberties:  liberty  of  the  pro- 

166 


The  Discussion 

ducer,  liberty  of  the  distributor,  and  liberty  of  the  con- 
sumer. The  first  two  need  no  discussion  —  they  have  been 
long,  thoroughly,  and  brilliantly  illustrated  by  the  political 
economists  of  Great  Britain,  and  by  her  eminent  states- 
men; but  it  seems  to  me  that  enough  attention  has  not 
been  directed  to  the  third,  and,  with  your  patience,  I  will 
dwell  on  that  for  a  moment,  before  proceeding  to  other 
topics. 

It  is  a  necessity  of  every  manufacturing  and  commercial 
people  that  their  customers  should  be  very  wealthy  and 
intelligent.  Let  us  put  the  subject  before  you  in  the  fa- 
miliar light  of  your  own  local  experience.  To  whom  do 
the  tradesmen  of  Liverpool  sell  the  most  goods  at  the 
highest  profit?  To  the  ignorant  and  poor,  or  to  the  edu- 
cated and  prosperous?  The  poor  man  buys  simply  for  his 
body;  he  buys  food,  he  buys  clothing,  he  buys  fuel,  he 
buys  lodging.  His  rule  is  to  buy  the  least  and  the  cheap- 
est that  he  can.  He  goes  to  the  store  as  seldom  as  he 
can, —  he  brings  away  as  little  as  he  can  —  and  he  buys 
for  the  least  he  can.  Poverty  is  not  a  misfortune  to  the 
poor  only  who  suffer  it,  but  it  is  more  or  less  a  misfor- 
tune to  all  with  whom  they  deal. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  man  well  off  —  how  is  it  with 
him?  He  buys  in  far  greater  quantity.  He  can  afford  to 
do  it;  he  has  the  money  to  pay  for  it.  He  buys  in  far 
greater  variety,  because  he  seeks  to  gratify  not  merely 
physical  wants,  but  also  mental  wants.  He  buys  for  the 
satisfaction  of  sentiment  and  taste,  as  well  as  of  sense. 
He  buys  silk,  wool,  flax,  cotton;  he  buys  all  metals  — 
iron,  silver,  gold,  platinum;  in  short,  he  buys  for  all 
necessities  and  of  all  substances.  But  that  is  not  all.  He 
buys  a  better  quality  of  goods.  He  buys  richer  silks, 
finer  cottons,  higher  grained  wools.  Now,  a  rich  silk 
means  so  much  skill  and  care  of  somebody's  that  has 
been  expended  upon  it  to  make  it  finer  and  richer;  and 
so  of  cotton,  and  so  of  wool.  That  is,  the  price  of  the 

167 


The  Discussion 

finer  goods  runs  back  to  the  very  beginning,  and  remuner- 
ates the  workman  as  well  as  the  merchant.  Indeed,  the 
whole  laboring  community  is  as  much  interested  and  pro- 
fited as  the  mere  merchant,  in  this  buying  and  selling 
of  the  higher  grades  in  the  greater  varieties  and  quanti- 
ties. 

The  law  of  price  is  the  skill;  and  the  amount  of  skill 
expended  in  the  work  is  as  much  for  the  market  as  are 
the  goods.  A  man  comes  to  the  market  and  says,  "  I  have 
a  pair  of  hands";  and  he  obtains  the  lowest  wages. 
Another  man  comes  and  says,  "  I  have  something  more 
than  a  pair  of  hands  —  I  have  truth  and  fidelity";  he 
gets  a  higher  price.  Another  man  comes  and  says,  "  I 
have  something  more;  I  have  hands  and  strength,  and 
fidelity,  and  skill."  He  gets  more  than  either  of  the 
others.  The  next  man  comes  and  says,  "  I  have  got  hands 
and  strength,  and  skill,  and  fidelity;  but  my  hands  work 
more  than  that.  They  know  how  to  create  things  for  the 
fancy,  for  the  affections,  for  the  moral  sentiments"; 
and  he  gets  more  than  any  of  the  others.  The  last  man 
comes  and  says,  "  I  have  all  these  qualities,  and  have 
them  so  highly  that  it  is  a  peculiar  genius";  and  genius 
carries  the  whole  market  and  gets  the  highest  price.  So 
that  both  the  workman  and  the  merchant  are  profited 
by  having  purchasers  that  demand  quality,  variety,  and 
quantity. 

Now,  if  this  be  so  in  the  town  or  the  city,  it  can  only 
be  so  because  it  is  a  law.  This  is  the  specific  development 
of  a  general  or  universal  law,  and  therefore  we  should 
expect  to  find  it  as  true  of  a  nation  as  of  a  city  like 
Liverpool.  I  know  it  is  so,  and  you  know  that  it  is  true 
of  all  the  world;  and  it  is  just  as  important  to  have  cus- 
tomers educated,  intelligent,  moral,  and  rich,  out  of  Liver- 
pool as  it  is  in  Liverpool.  They  are  able  to  buy;  they 
want  variety;  they  want  the  very  best;  and  those  are  the 
customers  you  want.  That  nation  is  the  best  customer 

168 


The  Discussion 

that  is  freest,  because  freedom  works  prosperity,  industry, 
and  wealth.  Great  Britain,  then,  aside  from  moral  con- 
siderations, has  a  direct  commercial  and  pecuniary  interest 
in  the  liberty,  civilization,  and  wealth  of  every  people  and 
every  nation  on  the  globe. 

You  have  also  an  interest  in  this,  because  you  are  a 
moral  and  a  religious  people.  You  desire  it  from  the 
highest  motives,  and  godliness  is  profitable  in  all  things, 
having  the  promise  of  the  life  that  is,  as  well  as  of 
that  which  is  to  come;  but  if  there  were  no  hereafter, 
and  if  man  had  no  progress  in  this  life,  and  if  there 
were  no  question  of  moral  growth  at  all,  it  would  be 
worth  your  while  to  protect  civilization  and  liberty, 
merely  as  a  commercial  speculation.  To  evangelize  has 
more  than  a  moral  and  religious  import  —  it  comes  back 
to  temporal  relations.  Wherever  a  nation  that  is 
crushed,  cramped,  degraded  under  despotism,  is  strug- 
gling to  be  free,  you,  Leeds,  Sheffield,  Manchester,  Paisley, 
all  have  an  interest  that  that  nation  should  be  free. 
When  depressed  and  backward  people  demand  that  they 
may  have  a  chance  to  rise  —  Hungary,  Italy,  Poland  — 
it  is  a  duty  for  humanity's  sake,  it  is  a  duty  for  the 
highest  moral  motives,  to  sympathize  with  them;  but 
beside  all  these  there  is  a  material  and  an  interested 
reason  why  you  should  sympathize  with  them.  Pounds 
and  pence  join  with  conscience  and  with  honor  in  this 
design.1 

EXERCISES 

A.  In  the  following  passage  point  out  all  assertions 
that  are  made,  note  whether  the  source  of  the  evidence 
is  definitely  stated,  and  test  the  witnesses  that  give  the 
evidence. 

Reciprocity  is  the  only  remedy  for  the  commercial  an- 

»The  World's  Famous  Orations,  Vol.  X,  p.  12.  Funk  and  Wag- 
nails  Company. 

169 


The  Discussion 

tagonism  which  is  fast  separating  Canada  and  the  United 
States.  Canada  has  long  waited  in  vain  for  the  culmina- 
tion of  treaties  whereby  she  can  trade  with  us  on  equal 
terms.  Now,  angered  by  our  long  evasion  of  the  ques- 
tion, she  is,  according  to  prominent  Canadian  statesmen, 
contemplating  the  passage  of  high  protective  tariff  laws, 
which  will  effectually  close  the  doors  of  Canadian  trade 
to  us.  Canada  is  young,  but  she  is  growing  fast.  The 
value  of  her  imports  is  steadily  growing  larger,  and  if 
we  do  not  make  some  concession  to  her  we  shall  lose 
this  vast  trade.  She  makes  and  sells  many  things  of 
which  we  do  not  have  a  home  supply.  Why  not  then 
open  our  doors  to  her  and  admit  her  products?  Would 
it  not  be  of  distinct  advantage  to  us? 

The  American  Press  is  almost  unanimous  in  declaring 
that  the  sum  of  the  advantages  attending  this  step  would 
far  offset  any  disadvantages.  For  instance,  the  supply  of 
lumber  in  the  United  States  is  fast  becoming  exhausted ; 
experts  say  that  in  fifteen  years  we  shall  have  a  lumber 
famine.  If  we  turn  to  Canada,  however,  we  see  her 
mountain  slopes  green  with  trees  and  her  wooded  val- 
leys covered  with  millions  of  feet  of  lumber.  Why,  then, 
not  get  our  lumber  from  Canada  and  preserve  what  few 
forests  we  do  have?  Because  of  the  exorbitant  tariff 
on  imported  lumber.  Lumber  at  its  present  high  prices 
is  even  cheap  compared  with  the  price  of  imported  lum- 
ber. Moreover,  lumber  is  not  the  only  article  that  is 
expensive  here,  though  it  is  cheap  just  across  the  line 
in  Canada.  The  World's  Work,  Vol.  V,  page  2979,  says 
that  reciprocity  with  Canada  would  cheapen  many  articles 
that  are  now  costly. 

B.  Point  out  the  kind  of  reasoning  found  in  each  of 
the  following  arguments  : — 

I.  The  wholesale  destruction  of  the  forests  in  many 
States  portends  the  loss  of  our  whole  timber  supply. 

170 


The  Discussion 

2.  His  faithful  performance  of  every  duty  assures  him 
an  early  promotion. 

3.  Since  he  succeeded  well  in  his  college  work,  it  is  an 
assured  fact  that  he  will  make  a  brilliant  reputation  for 
himself  in  business. 

4.  Caesar  had  his  Brutus,  Charles  I  his  Cromwell,  and 
George  III  —may  profit  by  their  example. 

5.  The   well-tilled   fields,  the   carefully-trimmed   hedges, 
and  the  sleek  appearance  of  the  stock  bespoke  a  thrifty 
and  industrious  farmer. 

6.  You  tried   in   Wales   to   raise   a   revenue   which   the 
people  thought  excessive  and  unjust:  the  attempt  ended 
in  oppression,  resistance,  rebellion,  and  loss  to  yourselves. 
You  tried  in  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster  to  raise  a  revenue 
which   the   people   believed   unjust:   this   effort   ended   in 
oppression,    rebellion,    vexation,    and    loss    to    yourselves. 
You  are  now  trying  to  raise  in  America  a  revenue  which 
the  Colonists  disapprove.    What  must  be  the  result? 

7.  Then,  sir,  from  these  six  capital  sources :  of  descent ; 
of    form    of    government;    oiT*¥e1igion    in    the    northern 
provinces;  of  manners  in  the  southern;  of  education;  of 
the  remoteness  of  situation  from  the  first  mover  of  gov- 
ernment—  from  all  these  causes  a  fierce  spirit  of  liberty 
has  grown  up. 

8.  Collective   bargaining    is    an    advantage    to    working 
men;  it  tends  to  give  them  some  share  in  the  control  of 
the  industry  to  which  they  contribute. 

9.  That  a  free  labor  union  is  not  the  impractical  dream 
of  an  idealist  is  to  be   found  in  the   fact  that  some  of 
the  greatest  and  most  successful  of  the   labor  organiza- 
tions have  always  adhered  to  the  principle  of  the  open 
shop.    In    the    Pennsylvania   coal-mines    union    and    non- 
union   miners    labored    together    in    the    same    mine    and 
reaped  the   same  benefits    from  the  collective  bargaining 
carried   on    for   them   by   John    Mitchell.     In   the   recent 

171 


The  Discussion 

anarchy  in  Colorado,  the  one  mine  which  went  on  with 
its  work  peacefully,  prosperously,  and  without  disturbance, 
until  it  was  closed  by  military  orders,  was  a  mine  which 
maintained  the  principle  of  the  open  shop,  and  in  which 
union  and  non-union  men  worked  peacefully  together. 

10.  Suppose  that  all  the  property  you  were  worth  was 
in  gold,  and  you  had  put  it  in  the  hands  of  Blondin,  the 
famous  rope-walker,  to  carry  across  the  Niagara  Falls  on 
a  tight  rope.  Would  you  shake  the  rope  while  he  was 
passing  over  it,  or  keep  shouting  to  him,  "  Blondin,  stoop 
a  little  more  1  Go  a  little  faster ! "  No,  I  am  sure  you 
would  not.  You  would  hold  your  breath  as  well  as  your 
tongue,  and  keep  your  hand  off  until  he  was  safely  over. 
Now  the  government  is  in  the  same  situation.  It  is 
carrying  an  immense  weight  across  a  stormy  ocean.  Un- 
told treasures  are  in  its  hands.  It  is  doing  the  best  it 
can.  Don't  badger  itl  Just  keep  still  and  it  will  get  you 
safely  over. 

C.  Prove  or  disprove  the  following  statements,  using, 
wherever  it  is  possible,  argument  from  antecedent  prob- 
ability, sign,  example,  and  authority.  Give  references  for 
all  evidence  except  generally  admitted  facts. 

1.  The  negro  is  not  prepared  to  receive  the  same  kind 
of  education  that  the  white  man  receives. 

2.  Railway  pooling  lowers  freight  rates. 

3.  The   election   of   Senators   by   State  Legislatures   is 
undemocratic. 

4.  The   present   commercial    relations    between    Canada 
and  the  United  States  are  detrimental  to  the  industries 
of  the  United  States. 

5.  The  influence  of  labor  unions  has  greatly  diminished 
child  labor  in  the  United  States. 

6.  Woman  suffrage  would  purify  politics. 

7.  Egypt  is  benefited  by  the  control  of  England. 
&  Strikes  benefit  the  working  man. 

172 


The  Discussion 

9.  The    municipal    ownership   of    street    railways    is   a 
financial  failure. 

10.  Lumber   companies   threaten   the   extermination  of 
the  forests  in  the  United  States. 


*73 


CHAPTER  VII 
\ 

THE  DISCUSSION  — BRIEF-DRAWING 

THE  second  division  of  a  brief,  corresponding  to 
the  second  division  of  a  complete  argument,  is  called 
the  discussion.  In  this  part  of  his  brief  the  arguer 
logically  arranges  all  the  evidence  and  reasoning 
that  he  wishes  to  use  in  establishing  or  overthrow- 
ing his  proposition.  Illustrative  material,  rhetori- 
cal embellishment,  and  other  forms  of  persuasion 
that  may  enter  into  the  finished  argument  are 
omitted,  but  the  real  proof  is  complete  in  the  brief. 

There  are  two  possible  systems  of  arranging 
proof.  For  the  sake  of  convenience  they  may  be 
called  the  "  because  "  method  and  the  "  therefore  " 
method.  These  methods  derive  their  names  from 
the  connectives  that  are  used.  When  the  "  be- 
cause "  method  is  used,  the  proof  follows  the  state- 
ment being  established,  and  is  connected  to  this 
statement  with  some  such  word  as :  as,  because,  for, 
or  since.  To  illustrate: — 
174 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

I.     Expenses  at  a  country  college  are  less  than  at 
a  city  college,  because 

A.  At    the    country    college    room    rent    is 

cheaper. 

B.  Table  board  costs  less. 

C.  Amusement  places  are  less  numerous. 
Under  the  "  therefore "  method,  the  proof  pre- 
cedes the  statement  being  established;  the  connec- 
tives are  hence  and  therefore.     The  previous  argu- 
ment arranged   in  this   form   would   read  as   fol- 
lows : — 

A.  Since  room  rent  is  cheaper  at  the  country 

college  than  at  the  city  college,  and 

B.  Since  table  board  costs  less,  and 

C.  Since  amusement  places  are  less  numerous, 

therefore. 
I.     Expenses  at  a  country  college  are  less  than 

at  a  city  college. 

The  student  should  always  use  the  "  because " 
method  of  arrangement.  It  is  preferable  to  the 
"  therefore  "  method  since  it  affords  a  much  easier 
apprehension  of  the  argument  advanced.  If  the 
reader  of  the  brief  has  the  conclusion  in  his  mind 
at  the  very  start,  he  can  test  the  strength  and  ade- 
quacy of  the  proof  very  quickly,  and  can,  perhaps, 
the  first  time  he  reads  the  argument  form  an  opinion 

175 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

as  to  its  worth.  But  he  will  almost  always  have 
difficulty  in  grasping  the  significance  of  evidence 
and  reasoning  before  he  knows  what  the  proof  is 
expected  to  prove.  The  "  therefore  "  method  usu- 
ally obliges  a  careful  reasoner,  after  finally  reaching 
the  conclusion,  to  go  over  the  whole  proof  a  second 
time. 

To  assist  the  student  in  carrying  out  the  proper 
arrangement  of  his  proof,  two  rules  have  been 
formulated.  One  rule  deals  with  main  headings, 
the  headings  marked  with  the  Roman  numerals; 
the  other  deals  with  subordinate  headings. 

Rule  IX.  Phrase  each  principal  statement  in  the 
discussion  so  that  it  will  read  as  a  reason  for  the 
truth  or  the  falsity  of  the  proposition. 

Rule  X.  Phrase  each  subordinate  statement  in 
the  discussion  so  that  it  will  read  as  a  reason  for 
the  truth  of  the  statement  to  which  it  is  subordinate. 
The  connectives  to  be  used  are:  as,  because,  for, 
and  since. 

In  connection  with  the  first  of  these  rules,  notice 
that  principal  headings  read  as  reasons  for  the  truth 
or  the  falsity  of  the  proposition.  Obviously  they 
read  as  reasons  for  the  truth  if  the  brief  is  on 
the  affirmative  side,  and  for  the  falsity  if  the  brief 
is  on  the  negative  side.  Headings  and  subhead- 

176 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

ings  should  always  be  supported,  not  demolished. 

The  error  of  making  unsupported  statements 
in  a  complete  argument  has  already  been  discussed. 
Assertion  in  a  brief  is  equally  faulty.  To  insure 
belief,  all  statements  must  rest  ultimately  either 
upon  the  testimony  of  witnesses  or  upon  statements 
admitted  to  be  true. 

Notice  how  unconvincing  is  the  following  portion 
of  a  brief: — 

Proposition  —  American  cities  should  own  and 
operate  all  street-car  lines  within  their  limits. 
I.     The  present  system  of  operating  street-car  lines 
is  efficient,  for 

A.  The  street-car  service  in  the  United  States 

is  the  best  in  the  world. 

B.  Street-car  fare  in  the  United  States  is  re- 

markably low. 

The  insertion  of  testimony,  however,  to  substan- 
tiate A  and  B  turns  this  bit  of  brief  into  excellent 
proof. 
I.     The  present  system  of  operating  street-car  lines 

is  efficient,  for 
A.    The    street-car    service    in    the    United 

States  is  the  best  in  the  world,  because 
I.     It  is  best  in  respect  to  extent,  since 
a.    James  W.  Garner  says  that  Eng- 

12 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

land  has  less  than  a  quarter  of 
the  street-car  facilities  found  in 
the  United  States.  (Dial,  Feb. 
1908,  p.  20.) 

b.  In  1902,  two  hundred  and  ninety- 
five  communities  in  the  United 
Kingdom  of  from  8,000  to  25,- 
ooo  inhabitants  were  without 
street  cars;  while  in  the  United 
States  there  were  only  twenty- 
one  such  communities.  (Mu- 
nicipal and  Private  Operation  of 
Public  Utilities,  W.  J.  Clark, 
Vol.  I,  p.  445.) 

2.  It  is  best  in  regard  to  equipment  and 
accommodation,  since 

a.  The  cars  are  the  best  equipped  in 

the  world.     (Ibid.) 

b.  The  cars  are  run  with  shorter  inter- 

vals   between    them    than    any- 
where else  in  the  world.     (Ibid.) 
B.     The  fare  in  the  United  States  is  remark- 
ably low,  because. 

I.  Although  the  fare  in  Glasgow,  a  lead- 
ing exponent  of  municipal  owner- 
ship, is  but  twopence,  yet  it  will 

178 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

carry  one  only  eight  miles;  but  five 
cents  in  New  York  will  carry  one 
fifty  miles. 

Rule  XL  Make  no  unsupported  statements  unless 
they  are  generally  admitted  to  be  true. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  the  arguer  must 
reveal  to  his  audience  the  sources  from  which  he 
gathered  his  evidence.  If  he  gained  certain  in- 
formation from  magazines,  he  should  state  definitely 
the  name,  the  volume,  and  the  page;  if  he  gained 
his  information  elsewhere,  he  should  be  equally 
explicit.  Since  this  knowledge  of  the  source  of 
the  evidence  is  essential  to  the  success  of  the  proof, 
a  statement  of  the  sources  is  a  part  of  the  work  of 
conviction.  Accordingly,  these  sources  must  be 
stated  in  the  brief  as  well  as  in  the  expanded  argu- 
ment. Thus  the  rule: — 

Rule  XII.  After  all  evidence  state  in  parentheses 
the  source  from  which  it  came. 

In  addition  to  establishing  the  side  of  the  propo- 
sition which  it  advocates,  a  good  brief  almost  in- 
variably refutes  the  main  arguments  of  the  oppo- 
site side.  The  way  in  which  this  refutation  is 
expressed  is  very  important.  A  brief  on  the  af- 
firmative side  of  the  proposition,  "  Resolved,  That 
the  Panama  canal  should  be  built  at  sea-level," 
179 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

would  be  weak  and  ludicrous,  if,  when  answering 
the  argument  for  the  negative  that  the  cost  of  a 
sea-level  canal  would  be  enormous,  it  should  con- 
tain the  following  reasoning: — 

The  Panama  Canal  should  be  built  at  sea-level. 
Xfor) 

I.    The  cost  would  not  be  much  greater  than  for 

a  lock  canal. 

One  might  think  from  this  statement  that  the 
drawer  of  the  brief  considered  the  contention  that 
the  sea-level  type  would  cost  a  little  though  not 
much  more  than  the  other  type,  a  positive  argument 
in  favor  of  the  sea-level  canal.  In  reality  it  is  noth- 
ing of  the  sort.  The  arguer  is  merely  trying  to 
destroy  his  opponent's  argument  to  the  effect  that 
expense  is  an  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  sea-level 
type.  This  refutation  should  be  expressed  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  show  that  it  is  refutation  and  not 
positive  proof.  It  might  well  read  something  like 
this  i—- 
The  Panama  Canal  should  be  built  at  sea-level, 
(for) 

I.    The  contention  of  the  negative  that  a  sea- 
level  canal  would  cost  enormously  more 
than  a  lock-canal  is  unsound,  since, 
A.    Etc. 

180 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

Notice  that  this  form  of  refutation  states  clearly 
the  argument  to  be  answered.  No  doubt  can  arise 
from  such  a  statement  as  to  the  direction  the  argu- 
ment is  taking;  no  confusion  can  occur  between 
refutation  and  positive  proof.  Hence  the  rule: — 

Rule  XIII.  Phrase  refutation  so  that  the  argu- 
ment to  be  answered  is  clearly  stated. 


THE  CONCLUSION. 

As  there  is  but  one  rule  for  brief-drawing  that 
applies  to  the  conclusion,  it  may  well  be  given  at 
this  point.  The  purpose  and  the  value  of  this  rule 
are  so  apparent  that  no  explanation  is  necessary. 

Rule  XIV.  Put  into  the  conclusion  a  summary 
of  the  essential  points  established  in  the  discussion. 


j 


RULES  FOR  BRIEF-DRAWING. 

General  Rules. 

I.  Divide  the  brief  into  three  parts,  and  mark 
them    respectively,    Introduction,    Discussion,    and 
Conclusion. 

II.  Express  each  idea  in  the  brief  in  the  form  of 
a  complete  statement. 

181 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

III.  Make  in  each  statement  only  a  single  asser- 
tion. 

IV.  Make  each  statement  as  concise  as  is  con- 
sistent with  clearness. 

V.  Indicate  the  relation  between  statements  by 
indentation  and  by  the  use  of  symbols. 

VI.  Mark     each     statement     with     only     one 
symbol. 

Rules  for  the  Introduction. 

VII.  Put  into  the  introduction  sufficient  expla- 
nation for  a  complete  understanding  of  the  discus- 
sion.    This  explanation  usually  involves  (a)  a  defi- 
nition of  terms,  (b)  an  explanation  of  the  meaning 
of  the  proposition,  (c)  a  statement  of  the  issues,  and 
(d)  the  partition. 

VIII.  Put  into  the  introduction  only  statements 
admitted  by  both  sides. 

Rules  for  the  Discussion. 

IX.  Phrase  each  principal  statement  in  the  dis- 
cussion so  that  it  will  read  as  a  reason  for  the  truth 
or  the  falsity  of  the  proposition. 

X.  Phrase  each  subordinate  statement  in  the  dis- 
cussion so  that  it  will  read  as  a  reason  for  the  truth 
of  the  statement  to  which  it  is  subordinate.     The 

182 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

connectives  to  be  used  are:  as,  because,  for,  and 
since. 

XL    Make    no    unsupported    statements    unless 
they  are  generally  admitted  to  be  true. 

XII.  After  all  evidence  state  in  parentheses  the 
source  from  which  it  came. 

XIII.  Phrase  refutation  so  that  the  argument  to 
be  answered  is  clearly  stated. 

Rule  for  the   Conclusion. 

XIV.  Put  into  the  conclusion  a  summary  of  the 
essential  points  established  in  the  discussion. 


MODEL  BRIEF. 

Resolved,  That  immigration  to  the  United  States 
should  be  further  restricted  by  an  educational  test. 

Affirmative  Brief. 

INTRODUCTION. 

I.  The  question  of  further  restricting  immigra- 
tion to  the  United  States  by  an  educational 
test  gains  in  importance  from  the  alleged 
impairment  of  American  institutions  and 
standards  by  immigration. 

183 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

II.    The  following  explanations  will  aid  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  question: — 

A.  Immigration  to  the  United  States  means 

the  migrating  of  people  into  the  United 
States  for  the  purpose  of  permanent 
residence.  (Century  Dictionary.) 

B.  The  restrictive  measures  now   in   force 

are  as  follows : — 

1.  Idiots,  insane  persons,  paupers,  con- 

victs, diseased  persons,  anarchists, 
polygamists,  women  for  immoral 
purposes,  assisted  aliens,  contract 
laborers,  and  the  Chinese  are  ex- 
cluded. (Statutes  of  the  United 
States.) 

2.  A  head  tax  of  four  dollars  is  im- 

posed.    (Ibid.) 

C.  The  proposed  restrictive  measure  is  as 

follows : — 

I.  Every  immigrant  to  the  United 
States  between  the  ages  of  fifteen 
and  fifty  must  be  able  to  read  and 
write  a  few  sentences  of  some  lan- 
guage. (Congressional  Record, 
Vol.  XXVIII,  page  5421.) 
184 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

III.     The  points  to  be  determined  seem  to  be : — 

A,  Is  there  a  need  for  further  restriction  of 

immigration  ? 

B.  If  there  is  such  a  need,  would  the  edu- 

cational  test   accomplish   this    further 
restriction  in  a  proper  manner? 

DISCUSSION. 
I.    There  is  great  need  for  further  restriction  of 

immigration,  because 

A.  The  character  of  the  immigrants  since 
1880  has  greatly  changed  for  the  worse, 
for 

I.     Before  1880  most  of  the  immigrants 

were  earnest,  energetic  people  from 

northern     and     western      Europe. 

(International  Encyclopaedia,  under 

Immigration.) 

12.  At  the  present  time  seventy  and  one- 
half  per  cent,  of  the  total  number 
of  immigrants  are  from  the  unener- 
getic  people  of  southern  and  eastern 
Europe.  (Ibid.) 

3.  More  immigrants  have  become  paupers 
than  was  formerly  the  case,  for 

185 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

a.  Prior  to  1880  there  were  compara- 
tively few  paupers  among  the  immi- 
grants.    (Ibid.) 

b.  At  present  the  percentage  of  pau- 
perism among  the  foreigners  here  is 
four  times  as  great  as  among  the 
natives.     (Ibid.) 

4.  While    the    Germans,    English,    and 

other  immigrants  from  northern 
Europe  who  came  here  before  1880 
were  moral  and  upright,  the  pres- 
ent immigrants  from  southern  Eu- 
rope have  a  low  code  of  morals,  for 
a.  The  moral  degeneracy  of  the 
races  of  southern  Europe  is  well 
known.  (Henry  Rood,  Forum,  Vol. 
XIV,  page  ri6.) 

5.  Crime  among  foreigners  in  this  coun- 

try has  increased  immensely,  for 
a.     In  1905  twenty-eight  per  cent,  of 
our     criminals     were     of     foreign 
birth.     (Report     of     the     Commis- 
sioner-General  of    Immigration    for 

19050 

6.  Illiteracy      among      immigrants      has 

greatly  increased,  for 
186 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

a.  In  1905  the  percentage  of  illiter- 

ates of  foreign  birth  was  twen- 
ty-six.    (Ibid.) 

b.  Many  of  the  present  immigrants 

are    illiterates     from     southern 

Italy.     (S.  E.  Moffett,  Review 

of  Reviews,  Vol.  28,  page  55.) 

B.     The  condition  of  the  cities  and  especially 

of  their  slum  districts  is  alarming,  for 

1.  The  number  of  immigrants  is  increas- 

ing astonishingly,  inasmuch  as, 

a.  8,385  immigrants  arrived  in  1820. 

b.  788,992     immigrants     arrived     in 

1882. 

c.  1,026,499    immigrants    arrived    in 

1905.     (Report      of      Commis- 
sioner-General of  Immigration, 

I9°5>  page  42.)'. 

2.  Two-thirds  of  the  total  number  of  im- 

migrants in  1902  settled  in  the 
cities.  (Editorial  in  Outlook,  Vol. 
LXXI,  page  154.) 

3.  These   congested   districts    foster   un- 

sanitary conditions,  physical  degen- 
eration, and  crime.  (Deputy  Clerk 
of  Children's  Court,  New  York 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

City,  North  American  Review,  Vol. 
CLXXIX,  page  731.) 
4.     Charitable  organizations  are  unable  to 
cope  with  the  problems  in  congested 
districts,  for 

a.    The  number  of  immigrants  is  in- 
creasing  too   rapidly.     (Report 
of     Commissioner-General     of 
Immigration,  1905.) 
C.    The    present    immigration    is    politically 

harmful,  for 

I.  Immigrants  of  the  kind  that  are  now 
coming  in  do  not  make  good  citi- 
zens, because 

a.  They  are  indifferent  to  civic  man- 

ners, for 

I'.  They  cannot  appreciate  the 
spirit  of  American  govern- 
ment, as  has  previously 
been  shown. 

b.  They  are  easily  influenced  in  all 

political    affairs    by    pecuniary 

persuasion,  for 

l'.  Their  sole  object  in  this  coun- 
try is  to  acquire  wealth. 
(Prescott  F.  Hall,  Secretary 
188 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

of  the  Immigration  Restric- 
tion League,  Annals  of 
American  Academy,  Vol. 
XXIV,  page  172.) 

D.    The  number  of  immigrants  is  too  great  to 
be  assimilated  properly,  since 

1.  Most  of  the  immigrants  are  extremely 

clannish,  for 

a.  "Little  Italics,"  "Little  Hunga- 
ries,"  and  "  Ghettos,"  exist  in 
great  numbers  and  size  through- 
out the  United  States.  (Henry 
Rood,  Forum,  Vol.  XIV,  page 
114.) 

2.  Most  of  the  immigrants  never  try  to 

learn  the  English  language,  for 
a.    They  have  no  need  for  it,  since 
i'.    They  seldom  come  in  contact 
with  English-speaking  peo- 
ple.    (Ibid.) 

3.  Their  tendency  is  not  to  become  citi- 

zens, for 

a.  Thirty-one  per  cent,  of  the  immi- 
grants return  home  after  hav- 
ing been  here  a  few  years. 
(Report  of  the  Commissioner- 

189 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

General  of  Immigration,  1905.) 
b.     Those  who  remain  cannot  for  the 
most  part  appreciate  our  gov- 
ernment, for 

i'.  They  have  been  continually 
trodden  upon  in  their  home 
countries. 

2'.     They  have  had  no  opportu- 
nity to  interest  themselves 
in     government.       (N.     S. 
Shaler,    Atlantic    Monthly, 
Vol.  LXXI,  page  646.) 
4.     The  argument  that  because  we  were 
able  to  assimilate  the  immigrants  in 
the  past  we  shall  be  able  to  do  so 
in  the  future,  is  unsound,  for 

a.  The  character  of  the  present  im- 

migrants has  changed,  as  shown 
previously. 

b.  In  the  future  we  may  expect  a 

much  larger  immigration.  (Pres- 
cott  F.  Hall,  Annals  of  Ameri- 
can Academy,  Vol.  XXIV,  page 
172.) 

E.     Immigrants  lower  the  standards  of  Amer- 
ican labor,  because 
190 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

1.  They  create  harmful  competition,  since 

a.  More  immigrants  are  coming  now 

than  we  really  need,  for 
I'.  In  1906  at  least  200,000  aliens 
came  here  who  were  of  no 
use  whatever.  (Commis- 
sioner of  Immigration  for 
New  York,  Popular  Sci- 
ence Monthly,  Vol.  LXVI, 
page  175.) 

b.  They  work  for  lower  wages  than 

do  Americans,  for 

i'.  They  are  able  to  live  more 
cheaply.  (Henry  Rood, 
Ibid.) 

2'.  They  place  a  lower  value  on 
their  labor.  (T.  V.  Pow- 
derly,  North  American  Re- 
view, Vol.  CXLVII,  page 

165.) 

2.  They  tend  to   destroy   the  independ- 

ence of  the  American  laborer,  for 
a.     They  work  under  conditions  that 
no  American  laborer  will  toler- 
ate, for 

i'.    They  create  degrading  forms 
191 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

of    employment.     (W.    H. 
Wilkins,    Nineteenth    Cen- 
tury, Vol.  XXX,  page  588.) 
b.    Their    selfish    desires   keep    them 
from  organizing  with  American 
laborers  for  protection. 

II.  The  educational  test  would  accomplish  the 
further  restriction  of  immigration  in  a  proper 
manner,  for 

A.     It  would  change  the  character  of  the  immi- 
grants for  the  better,  since 

1.  It   would    keep   out   the   unenergetic 

races  of  southern  and  eastern  Eu- 
rope, because 

a.  Ninety-three  per  cent,  of  illiter- 
ates come  from  southern  and 
eastern  Europe.  (International 
Encyclopaedia,  under  Immigra- 
tion.) 

2.  It  would  decrease  the  amount  of  pau- 

perism, for 

a.  The  southern  Italians,  who  are  the 
most  illiterate,  produce  the  most 
pauperism.  (Ibid.) 

3.  It  would  raise  the  standard  of  moral- 

ity, since 

192 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

a.  Ignorance  is  closely  coupled  with 

immorality,  for 

i'.  The  southern  Italians  have  a 
very  low  standard  of  living 
in  the  United  States. 
(Henry  Rood,  Forum,  Vol. 
XIV,  page  116.) 

b.  The    educational   test   would    ex- 

clude such  people. 

4.     It    would    decrease    the    amount    of 
crime,  for 

a.  It  would  keep  out  most  of  the  im- 

migrants from  southern  Europe, 
for 
I'.    Ninety-three  per  cent,  of  the 

illiterates   come    from   this 

source. 

b.  The  criminal  tendencies  of  people 

from  southern  Europe  are  well 
known.     (Henry  Rood,  Ibid.) 
B.    The  educational  test  would  improve  the 

condition  of  the  cities,  for 
I.    They  would  be  more  sanitary  and  less 

criminal,  since 

a.    These  evils  are  due  largely  to  con- 
gestion. 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

b.     Under  this  test  the  cities  would  be 

less  congested,  for 
i'.     Immigration    would    be     re- 
duced twenty-two   and   six 
tenths  per  cent. 

2'.     Educated  immigrants  are  not 

likely  to  settle  in  the  slums. 

C.     If  the  cities  were  less  congested, 

charitable  societies  could  remove 

more  evils  from  the  slums,  and 

in     time     even     eliminate     the 

slums. 

C.     The  educational  test  would  aid  the  coun- 
try politically,  for 

1.  We  should  receive  only  those  immi- 

grants who  are  intellectually  capable 
of  becoming  good  citizens,  for 
a.     Education  enables  a  man  to  be- 
come interested  in  the  govern- 
ment in  which  he  lives. 

2.  Bribery  would  cease,  for 

a.     Greed  for  small  amounts  of  money 
is  not  so  strong  among  the  in- 
telligent.    (Prescott     F.     Hall, 
Ibid.) 
194 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

D.     The  educational  test  would  aid  the  work 
of  assimilation,  for 

1.  It  would  bar  to   a  great   extent   the 

clannish  immigrants,  as 
a.     Clannishne£s  is  largely  a  result  of 
superstition  and  ignorance. 
(Henry  Rood,  Ibid.) 

2.  It  would  practically   force  the  immi- 

grants to  learn  the  English  language, 
for 

a.  Their  clans  broken  up,  they  would 
naturally  come  in  contact  more 
and  more  with  English-speak- 
ing people. 

3.  It  would  produce  among  the  foreign- 

born  element  of  the  United  States  a 
wider  interest  in  civic  affairs,  for 

a.  Those  who  have  some  education 

can  better  appreciate  our  gov- 
ernment than  those  who  are 
illiterate. 

b.  It  would  admit  only  those  who,  by 

reason  of  their  education,  small 
though  it  may  be,  have  had  the 
chance  to  study  somewhat  their 
195 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

home     governments.      (N.     S. 
Shaler,  Ibid.) 

E.    The  educational  test  would  tend  to  raise 
the  standards  of  American  labor,  for 

1.  It  would  cut  down  competition,  since 

a.  It  would  shut  out  many  laborers, 

for 

i'.  Most  of  those  affected  by 
this  test  would  be  common 
laborers. 

b.  It  would  tend  to  equalize  the  rate 

of  wages,  because 
l'.     Immigrants  would  not  be  will- 
ing   to     work     for    lower 
wages,  for 

a'.  The  slums  being  gone, 
they  would  need  more 
money  for  existence. 

2.  It    would    aid    the    independence    of 

American  labor,  for 
a.     Immigrants  would  no  longer  be  so 
reluctant     to     co-operate     with 
American   laborers    for  protec- 
tion, for 

l'.  It  is  well  known  that,  as  a 
rule,  only  the  most  ignorant 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

classes    refuse    to    join 
unions. 

b.  The  low  industrial  competition 
would  be  removed,  as  previously 
shown. 

F.  The  educational  test  would  be  practical, 

for 

1.  It  is  not  a  test  depending  upon  the 

representations  of  immigrants  or  the 
decisions  of  inspectors.  (Prescott 
F.  Hall,  Forum,  Vol.  XXX,  page 

5640 

2.  The  educational  test  has  worked  well 

in  Australia.  (Professor  Frank 
Parsons,  Annals  of  American  Acad- 
emy, Vol.  XXIV,  page  215.) 

G.  It  would  lessen  the  burden  of  education 

for  the  government,  for 

1.  It  would  force  prospective  immigrants 

to  get  their  elementary  education  in 
Europe. 

2.  The  immigrants  would  have  some  edu- 

cation as  a  foundation  for  more. 


197 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

CONCLUSION. 

The  affirmative  has  proved  the  following: — 

I.    There  is  great  need  for  further  restriction  of 

immigration. 

II.  The  educational  test  would  accomplish  the 
further  restriction  of  immigration  in  a  proper 
manner. 

Therefore,  immigration  to  the  United  States 
should  be  further  restricted  by  an  educational  test. 

EXERCISES 

State  the  propositions  upheld  in  the  following  argu- 
ments, and  put  the  material  into  brief  form: — 

i.  At  all  events,  this  is  clear:  that  throughout  those 
six  months  the  government  knew  perfectly  well  the  dan- 
ger in  which  General  Gordon  was  placed.  It  has  been 
said  that  General  Gordon  did  not  ask  for  troops.  Well, 
I  am  surprised  at  that  defense.  One  of  the  characteristics 
of  General  Gordon  was  the  extreme  abnegation  of  his 
nature.  It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  he  should  send 
home  a  telegram  to  say,  "  I  am  in  great  danger,  there- 
fore send  me  troops."  He  would  probably  have  cut  off 
his  right  hand  before  be  would  have  sent  such  a  tele- 
gram. But  he  did  send  a  telegram  that  the  people  of 
Khartum  were  in  danger,  and  that  the  Mahdi  must  win 
unless  military  succor  was  sent  forward,  and  distinctly 
telling  the  government  —  and  this  is  the  main  point  — 
that  unless  they  would  consent  to  his  views  the  supremacy 
of  the  Mahdi  was  assured. 

My    lords,    is    it    conceivable    that    after    that  —  two 

198 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

months  after  that  —  in  May,  the  prime  minister  should 
have  said  that  the  government  was  waiting  to  have  rea- 
sonable proof  that  Gordon  was  in  danger?  By  that  time 
Khartum  was  surrounded,  and  the  governor  of  Berber 
had  announced  that  his  case  was  desperate,  which  was 
too  surely  proved  by  the  massacre  which  took  place  in 
June. 

And  yet  in  May  Mr.  Gladstone  was  waiting  for  rea- 
sonable proof  that  they  were  in  danger.  Apparently  he 
did  not  get  that  proof  till  August. 

A  general  sent  forward  on  a  dangerous  expedition  does 
not  like  to  go  whining  for  assistance,  unless  he  is  pressed 
by  absolute  peril.  All  those  great  qualities  which  go  to 
make  men  heroes  are  such  as  are  absolutely  incompatible 
with  such  a  course,  and  lead  them  to  shrink  as  from  a 
great  disgrace  from  any  unnecessary  appeal  for  exertion 
for  their  protection.  It  was  the  business  of  the  govern- 
ment not  to  interpret  General  Gordon's  telegrams  as  if 
they  had  been  statutory  declarations,  but  to  judge  for 
themselves  of  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  and  to  see 
that  those  who  were  surrounded,  who  were  the  only 
three  Englishmen  among  this  vast  body  of  Mohammedans, 
who  were  already  cut  off  from  all  communication  with 
the  civilized  world  by  the  occupation  of  every  important 
town  upon  the  river,  were  in  real  danger. 

I  do  not  know  any  other  instance  in  which  a  man  has 
been  sent  to  maintain  such  a  position  without  a  certain 
number  of  British  troops.  If  the  British  troops  had  been 
there  treachery  would  have  been  impossible;  but  sending 
Gordon  by  himself  to  rely  on  the  fidelity  of  Africans  and 
Egyptians  was  an  act  of  extreme  rashness,  and  if  the 
government  succeed  in  proving,  which  I  do  not  think 
they  can,  that  treachery  was  inevitable,  they  only  pile 
up  an  additional  reason  for  their  condemnation.  I  con- 
fess it  is  very  difficult  to  separate  this  question  from  the 
personal  matters  involved.  It  is  very  difficult  to  argue 

199 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

it  on  purely  abstract  grounds  without  turning  for  a  mo- 
ment to  the  character  of  the  man  who  was  engaged  and 
the  terrible  position  in  which  he  was  placed. 

When  we  consider  all  that  he  underwent,  all  that  he 
sacrificed  in  order  to  save  the  government  in  a  moment 
of  extreme  exigency,  there  is  something  infinitely  pa- 
thetic in  reflecting  on  his  feelings,  as  day  after  day,  week 
after  week,  month  after  month  passed  by  —  as  he  spared 
no  exertions,  no  personal  sacrifice,  to  perform  the  duties 
that  were  placed  upon  him  — as  he  lengthened  out  the 
siege  by  inconceivable  prodigies  of  ingenuity,  of  activity, 
of  resource  —  and  as,  in  spite  of  it  all,  in  spite  of  the 
deep  devotion  to  his  country,  which  had  prompted  him 
to  this  great  risk  and  undertaking,  the  conviction  grad- 
ually grew  upon  him  that  his  country  had  abandoned 
him. 

It  is  terrible  to  think  what  he  must  have  suffered  when 
at  last,  as  a  desperate  measure  to  save  those  he  loved,  he 
parted  with  the  only  two  Englishmen  with  whom  during 
those  long  months  he  had  any  converse,  and  sent  Stewart 
and  Power  down  the  river  to  escape  from  the  fate  which 
had  become  inevitable  to  himself.  It  is  very  painful  to 
think  of  the  reproaches  to  his  country  and  to  his  coun- 
try's government  that  must  have  passed  through  the  mind 
of  that  devoted  man  during  those  months  of  unmerited 
desertion.  In  Gordon's  letter  of  the  fourteenth  of  Decem- 
ber he  said:  "All  is  up.  I  expect  the  catastrophe  in 
ten  days'  time;  it  would  not  have  been  so  if  our  people 
had  kept  me  better  informed  as  to  their  intentions." 

They  had  no  intentions  to  inform  him  of.  They  were 
merely  acting  from  hand  to  mouth  to  avert  the  parliamen- 
tary censure  with  which  they  were  threatened.  They  had 
no  plan,  they  had  no  intentions  to  carry  out.  If  they 
could  have  known  their  intentions,  a  great  hero  would 
have  been  saved  to  the  British  army,  a  great  disgrace 

200 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

would  not  have  fallen  on  the  English  government.1 
2.  For  any  State  to  make  sex  a  qualification  that  must 
ever  result  in  the  disfranchisement  of  one  entire  half 
of  the  people  is  to  pass  a  bill  of  attainder,  or  an  ex 
post  facto  law,  and  is  therefore  a  violation  of  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land.  By  it  the  blessings  of  liberty  are  for- 
ever witheld  from  women  and  their  female  posterity.  To 
them  this  government  has  no  just  powers  derived  from 
the  consent  of  the  governed.  To  them  this  government 
is  not  a  democracy.  It  is  not  a  republic.  It  is  an  odious 
aristocracy;  a  hateful  oligarchy  of  sex;  the  most  hateful 
aristocracy  ever  established  on  the  face  of  the  globe;  an 
oligarchy  of  wealth,  where  the  rich  govern  the  poor.  An 
oligarchy  of  learning,  where  the  educated  govern  the 
ignorant,  or  even  an  oligarchy  of  race  where  the  Saxon 
rules  the  African,  might  be  endured;  but  this  oligarchy 
of  sex,  which  makes  father,  brothers,  husband,  sons,  the 
oligarchs  over  the  mother  and  sisters,  the  wife  and  daugh- 
ters of  every  household  —  which  ordains  all  men  sover- 
eigns, all  women  subjects,  carries  dissension,  discord  and 
rebellion  into  every  home  of  the  nation. 

Webster,  Worcester  and  Bouvier  all  define  a  citizen  to 
be  a  person  in  the  United  States,  entitled  to  vote  and 
hold  office. 

The  only  question  left  to  be  settled  now  is:  Are 
women  persons  ?  And  I  hardly  believe  any  of  our  op- 
ponents will  have  the  hardihood  to  say  they  are  not  Be- 
ing persons,  then,  women  are  citizens;  and  no  State  has 
a  right  to  make  any  law,  or  to  enforce  any  old  law,  that 
shall  abridge  their  privileges  or  immunities.  Hence, 
every  discrimination  against  women  in  the  constitutions 
and  laws  of  the  several  States  is  to-day  null  and  void.2 

1  On    the    Desertion    of    Gordon    in    Egypt,    Lord    Salisbury,    The 
World's  Famous  Orations.     Funk  &  Wagnalls,   Vol.  V,  p.   in. 

2  On    Woman's    Right   to   the    Suffrage,    Susan    B.    Anthony.     The 
World's   Famous  Orations.     Funk  &  Wagnalls,  Vol.  X,  p.   59. 

201 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

3.  The  "  Legal  Intelligencer  "  prints  the  full  text  of  the 
recent  decision  of  Judge  Sulzberger  in  the  case  of  Claus 
&  Basher  vs.  the  Rapid  Transit  Company,  which  deals 
with  a  phase  of  the  question  concerning  the  use  of  the 
streets  in  obstructing  public  travel.  The  Judge,  in  deny- 
ing the  plaintiffs  a  rule  for  a  new  trial,  put  the  matter 
under  review  into  his  customary  concise  logic,  as  follows : 

The  plaintiff  contends  that  the  direction  for  defendant 
was  erroneous,  because  the  jury  should  have  been  given 
the  opportunity  to  pass  upon  the  question  whether  he  was 
or  was  not  negligent  in  placing  his  wagon  in  such  a  posi- 
tion that  it  encroached  three  or  four  feet  upon  the  transit 
company's  track,  without  which  encroachment  the  accident 
could  not  have  happened. 

His  reasons  are  as  follows : 

1.  That  a  driver,  for  the  purpose  of  watering  his  horses, 
has  the  right  to  encroach  on  the  trolley  track. 

2.  That  even  if  he  has  not,  it  is  negligence  for  a  motor- 
man  not  to  stop  his  car  in  time  to  prevent  a  collision  in 
broad  daylight  with  a  conspicuous  obstacle  like  a  wagon 
in  front  of  him. 

As  to  the  first  point: 

An  obstruction  of  the  highway  which  is  temporary  and 
partial  may  be  justified  in  cases  of  plain,  evident  neces- 
sity, but  not  where  that  necessity  is  argumentative  and 
supposititious:  Com.  vs.  Passmore,  i  S.  &  R.  217;  Rex  v. 
Russell,  6  East.  427.  There  was  no  necessity  on  the 
plaintiff  to  water  his  horses  in  the  way  he  did.  Two 
other  ways,  both  perfectly  safe,  were  open  to  him.  He 
chose  the  easiest  and  the  riskiest. 

But  if  there  had  not  been  two  safe  ways  open  for 
him,  he  would  still  have  been  guilty  of  negligence  in 
drawing  his  wagon  across  a  trolley  track,  on  a  busy  city 
street,  on  which  cars  were  running  every  minute  or  two. 
The  primary  use  of  the  car  track  is  for  public  travel,  not  for 
watering  horses.  A  permanent  watering-trough  on  a  side- 

202 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

walk,  so  constructed  as  not  to  be  usable  without  stopping 
the  running  of  the  cars,  would  be  a  nuisance.  The  sup- 
posed analogy  to  the  right  of  an  abutter  to  load  and 
unload  a  necessary  article  fails  entirely.  A  passing  driver 
is  not  in  the  position  of  an  abutter,  the  reasonableness 
of  whose  action  is  determined  by  the  degree  of  momentary 
necessity,  and  the  limit  of  whose  right  is  that  his  ob- 
struction must  be  temporary.  Here,  however,  the  water- 
ing-trough and  not  the  driver  is  in  the  abutter's  position. 
The  watering-trough  is  a  public  utility,  which  every  one 
may  use.  On  a  warm  day,  in  a  busy  city  street,  hundreds 
of  vehicles  may  stop  there,  and  the  quantity  of  obstruction 
is  not  the  time  occupied  by  each,  but  the  sum  of  the 
times  occupied  by  all.  The  effect  must  necessarily  be  a 
serious  hindrance  to  public  travel,  which  might  some- 
times result  in  complete  stoppage. 

To  use  the  thought  of  Mr.  Justice  Dean,  in  Com.  vs. 
Forrest,  170  Pa.  47,  the  law  would  soon  be  invoked  to 
decide  whether  the  car  track  was  for  the  cars  or  for 
vehicles  stopped  thereon  for  the  purpose  of  watering 
horses;  whether  the  driver  of  such  vehicles  was  in  the 
exercise  of  a  lawful  right  or  was  a  usurper  of  the  rights 
of  others. 

In  the  case  of  Attorney-General  vs.  the  Sheffield  Gas 
Consumers'  Company,  19  Eng.  Law  &  Eq.  639,  Lord 
Chancellor  Cranworth,  considering  a  similar  question, 
used  this  illustration :  "  No  doubt  that  it  would  be  a 
nuisance,  and  a  very  serious  nuisance,  if  a  person  with 
a  barrel  organ,  or  the  bagpipes,  were  to  come  and 
station  himself  under  a  person's  window  all  day.  But 
when  he  is  going  through  a  city,  you  know  that  he  will 
stop  ten  minutes  at  one  place  and  ten  minutes  at  another, 
and  you  know  he  will  so  go  on  during  the  day."  The 
watering-trough,  however,  is  stationary. 

As  to  the  second  point: 

The  general  rule  in  Pennsylvania  is  that  contributory 

203 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

negligence  prevents  recovery.  This  rule,  it  is  true,  does 
not  apply  where  the  defendant  is  guilty  of  "negligence 
so  wanton  and  gross  as  to  be  evidence  of  voluntary  in- 
jury"; Wynn  vs.  Allord,  5  W.  &  S.  525;  McKnight  vs. 
Ratcliff,  44  Pa.  156.  There  is,  however,  nothing  in  the 
testimony  to  indicate  that  the  defendant's  motorman  did 
anything  wanton.  Coming  down  a  steep  hill,  he  failed 
for  a  moment  to  see  an  obstacle  which  he  had  a  right 
to  expect  would  not  be  on  the  track.  No  one  says  that 
he  did  not  do  his  best  to  prevent  the  collision  after  he 
had  seen  the  wagon. 

The  question  at  bottom  is  one  of  public  policy.  Should 
the  motorman  anticipate  that  persons  of  mature  age  will 
station  their  wagons  across  the  tracks?  If  the  rights  of 
the  traveling  public  are  to  be  preserved,  the  answer  must 
be  in  the  negative. 

4.  Aside  from  the  money  question,  the  most  serious 
problem  that  confronts  the  people  of  America  to-day  is 
that  of  rescuing  their  cities,  their  States  and  the  federal 
government,  including  the  federal  judiciary,  from  abso- 
lute control  of  corporate  monopoly.  How  to  restore  the 
voice  of  the  citizen  in  the  government  of  his  country; 
and  how  to  put  an  end  to  those  proceedings  in  some 
of  the  higher  courts  which  are  farce  and  mockery  on 
one  side,  and  a  criminal  usurpation  and  oppression  on  the 
other.  .  .  . 

In  as  much  as  no  government  can  endure  in  which 
corrupt  greed  not  only  makes  the  laws,  but  decides  who 
shall  construe  them,  many  of  our  best  citizens  are  be- 
ginning to  despair  of  the  republic.  Others  urge  that  we 
should  remove  the  bribe-givers  —  that  is,  destroy  this 
overwhelming  temptation  by  having  the  government  take 
all  these  monopolies  itself  and  furnish  the  service  which 
they  now  furnish,  and  thus  not  only  save  our  institutions, 
but  have  the  great  profits  which  now  go  into  the  pockets 

204 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

of  private  corporations  turned  into   the  public  treasury. 

Let  us  see  what  civilized  man  is  doing  elsewhere.  Take 
the  cities  of  Great  Britain  first,  for  they  have  the  same 
power  of  self-government  that  American  cities  have.  In 
all  that  pertains  to  the  comfort  and  enterprise  of  the 
individual  we  are  far  in  the  lead ;  but  in  the  government 
of  cities  we  are  far  behind.  Glasgow  has  to-day  nearly 
one  million  inhabitants  and  is  one  of  the  great  manu- 
facturing and  commercial  cities  of  the  world.  Thirty 
years  ago  there  was  scarcely  a  city  that  was  in  a  worse 
condition.  Private  corporations  furnished  it  a  poor  qual- 
ity of  water,  taken  from  the  Clyde  River,  and  they 
charged  high  rates  for  it.  The  city  drained  into  the 
Clyde,  and  it  became  horribly  filthy.  Private  corporations 
furnished  a  poor  quality  of  gas,  at  a  high  price;  and 
private  companies  operated  the  street  railroads.  Private 
companies  had  the  same  grip  on  the  people  there  that 
they  have  in  most  American  cities.  Owing  to  the  develop- 
ment of  great  shipbuilding  and  other  industries  in  the 
valley  of  the  Clyde,  the  laboring  population  of  Glasgow 
became  very  dense  and  the  means  of  housing  the  people 
were  miserable.  Poorly  lighted,  poorly  ventilated,  filthy 
houses  brought  high  rents.  In  many  cases  two  families 
lived  in  one  room.  Cleanliness  was  impossible^  the  san- 
itary conditions  were  frightful  and  the  death  rate  was 
high.  As  for  educational  facilities,  there  were  none  worth 
mentioning  for  these  people.  The  condition  of  the  labor- 
ing classes  was  one  of  degradation  and  misery ;  children 
were  growing  up  mentally,  morally  and  physically  dis- 
eased ;  a  generation  was  coming  which  threatened  to  be 
an  expense  and  a  menace  to  the  country.  It  was  a  great 
slum  city. 

But  patriotic  and  public-spirited  men  came  to  the  front 
and  gave  the  city  the  benefit  of  their  services  free.  In 

205 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

fact,  none  of  the  high  city  officials  in  Great  Britain  re- 
ceived any  pay  other  than  the  well  being  of  humanity 
and  the  good  opinions  of  their  country.  The  city  rid 
itself  of  the  private  companies  by  buying  them  and  then 
brought  fresh  water  from  the  highlands,  a  distance  of  sixty 
miles.  It  doubled  the  quantity  of  water  furnished  the 
inhabitants,  and  reduced  the  cost  to  consumers  by  one- 
half.  And  yet  the  department  now  yields  over  two  hun- 
dred thousand  dollars  a  year  net  income  over  all  fixed 
charges. 

The  municipality,  after  much  difficulty,  bought  the  gas 
plants  and  gradually  reduced  the  price  of  gas  from  $1.14 
to  58  cents,  and  it  now  illuminates  not  only  the  streets 
and  public  places,  but  all  passageways  and  stairways  in 
flat  buildings,  experience  having  shown  that  a  good  lamp 
is  almost  as  useful  as  a  policeman.  The  total  debt  of 
the  city  for  plants,  extensions,  etc.,  to  illumine  perfectly 
all  the  city  had  reached  nearly  five  and  a  half  millions 
of  dollars.  Notwithstanding  the  low  price  at  which  gas 
is  sold,  this  sum  has  gradually  been  reduced  to  less  than 
two  and  a  half  millions  of  dollars  out  of  the  earnings 
of  the  system,  and  it  will  soon  be  wiped  out  and  the 
entire  revenue  go  into  the  city  treasury. 

The  street  railways  were  owned  by  the  city,  but,  until 
1894,  they  were  leased  out  under  an  arrangement  which 
paid  the  city  full  cost  of  construction,  with  interest,  be- 
sides a  yearly  income  of  $750  per  street  mile.  In  1894 
the  city  began  to  operate  the  lines  itself.  The  fares  were 
reduced  33  per  cent.,  besides  special  tickets  to  laborers, 
so  that  the  average  is  under  two  cents,  and  over  one- 
third  of  all  fares  are  one  cent  each. 

The  private  company  had  worked  its  men  twelve  and 
fourteen  hours  a  day  and  paid  irregular  and  unsatis- 
factory wages.  The  city  at  once  reduced  the  number  of 
hours  to  ten,  and  fixed  a  satisfactory  scale  of  wages. 
And,  compared  with  what  it  formerly  was,  the  service 

20$ 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

has  been  greatly  improved.  In  spite  of  all  these  acts  for 
the  benefit  of  the  public,  the  roads  which  had  cost  the 
city  nothing,  now  net  over  all  charges  for  improvements, 
etc.,  one- fourth  of  a  million  annually.  In  1892  the  city 
bought  out  a  private  electric  light  company,  and  now  has 
the  monopoly  of  furnishing  electric  light  and  power. 
This  promises  to  be  a  source  of  enormous  revenue  for 
the  city.  .  .  . 

Manchester  has  within  its  narrow  limits  only  a  little 
over  half  a  million  people,  but  within  a  radius  of  twenty 
miles  from  her  city  hall  there  are  over  three  million 
inhabitants.  These  have  to  be  considered  in  discussing 
Manchester,  which  is  essentially  a  manufacturing  and 
commercial  city.  Its  history  is  in  many  respects  a  parallel 
of  that  of  Glasgow.  It  seemed  to  be  a  great  city  of 
slums,  degradation  and  misery,  and  was  in  the  grip  of 
private  monopolies. 

To-day  the  city  furnishes  all  the  service  that  is  fur- 
nished here  by  private  corporations,  and  does  it  at  about 
one-half  cost.  It  furnishes  gas  at  fifty-six  cents  a  thou- 
sand, and  after  deducting  all  that  is  used  to  illuminate 
perfectly  the  streets  and  after  applying  $200,000  a  year 
on  the  original  cost  of  plants,  etc.,  it  still  turns  $300,000 
a  year  into  the  public  treasury,  altho  the  aim  in  nearly 
all  English  cities  is  not  to  make  money,  but  to  serve 
the  public. 

The  city  constructed  an  aqueduct  ninety  miles  to  secure 
pure  water  and  furnishes  this  for  a  little  more  than  half 
what  the  private  company  had  charged  for  a  poor  quality 
of  water.  It  owns  street  railways,  and  besides  giving 
greatly  reduced  rates  and  giving  half-fare  tickets  to  work- 
ingmen,  the  city  derives  a  large  revenue  from  this  source. 
Like  Glasgow  and  Birmingham,  the  city  owns  large  ceme- 
teries in  which  there  are  separate  sections  for  the  differ- 
ent religious  denominations,  and  prices  are  so  arranged 
that  while  those  who  desire  to  do  so  can  get  lots  costing 

207 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

from  ten  to  thirty  dollars,  yet  "a  decent  burial  with  in- 
scription on  stone  over  a  grave  can  be  had  at  about  four 
dollars  for  adults  and  three  dollars  for  children.  This 
charge  includes  all  cemetery  fees  and  expenses." 

The  city  owns  the  markets  and  slaughter  houses.  It 
has  provided  parks  and  swimming  baths  and,  like  Birming- 
ham and  Glasgow,  it  maintains  large  technical  schools  in 
which  thousands  of  young  men  are  instructed  in  the  in- 
dustrial arts  and  sciences,  so  as  to  be  able  to  maintain 
Manchester's  greatness. 

Birmingham  has  over  half  a  million  of  people,  and  its 
experience  resembles  that  of  Glasgow  and  Manchester. 
Formerly  private  corporations  controlled  almost  every- 
thing and  charged  very  high  rates  for  very  poor  service, 
and  the  sanitary  conditions  were  frightful.  But  here 
again  municipal  statesmen  came  to  the  front,  the  most 
prominent  among  whom  was  The  Honorable  Joseph  Cham- 
berlain, who  has  since  been  in  the  British  government. 

Not  going  further  into  detail,  let  me  say  there  are  at 
present  in  the  United  Kingdom  185  municipalities  that 
supply  their  inhabitants  with  water,  with  gas  and  electric 
light,  and  one-third  of  the  street  railway  mileage  of 
Great  Britain  is  owned  by  the  municipalities.  Leaving 
out  London  it  amounts  to  two-thirds.  And  in  most  in- 
stances in  which  they  do  not  own  the  street  railways, 
they  have  compelled  the  companies  to  grant  low  fares 
and  divide  profits. 

Every  business  reason  applicable  to  the  municipalities  and 
governments  of  Europe  is  applicable  here.  We  want  as  pure 
water,  as  good  drainage,  as  cheap  service  as  they  have, 
and  we  want  the  same  privilege  of  supplying  ourselves 
as  they  exercise;  and  when  it  is  apparent  that,  by  acting 
collectively,  we  can  do  business  more  successfully,  can 
serve  ourselves  better  in  every  way,  and  can  secure  for 
the  public  treasury  these  millions  which  now  go  into 
the  pockets  of  grasping  individuals,  have  we  not  a  right 

208 


Brief  of  the  Discussion 

to  do  it?  If  we  find  that,  in  this  manner,  we  can  give 
steadiness  to  labor,  and  can  elevate  its  standards  and 
improve  the  conditions  of  our  people,  dare  we  not  do  it? 
Every  one  of  the  reforms  carried  out  in  England  and 
on  the  continent  met  with  fierce  opposition  from  the 
same  classes  that  oppose  them  here,  but  the  business  sense 
and  patriotic  impulse  of  the  people  prevailed,  and  I  be- 
lieve, will  prevail  here.1 
5.  Draw  a  brief  of  Beecher's  speech  found  on  page  166. 

1  On  Municipal  and  Government  Ownership,  Altgeld.     The  World'* 
Famous  Orations.     Funk  &  Wagnalls  Co.,  Vol.  X,  p.  208. 


I4  209 


CHAPTER  VIII 
METHODS  OF  REFUTATION 

A  COMPLETE  argument  consists  of  two  kinds  of 
proof:  constructive  proof  and  refutation.  Con- 
structive proof  is  that  part  of  an  argument  which 
sets  forth  direct  reasons  for  belief  in  a  certain 
proposition;  refutation  is  that  part  which  destroys 
the  reasons  for  belief  in  the  opposite  side. 

In  general,  each  of  these  divisions  is  of  about 
equal  importance,  at  times  the  value  of  one  pre- 
dominating and  at  times  the  value  of  the  other.  If 
one  is  addressing  an  audience  unacquainted  with 
his  views  or  hostile  towards  them,  he  is  not  likely 
to  make  much  progress  in  getting  his  own  beliefs 
accepted  until  he  has,  at  least  in  part,  shattered  the 
opinion  already  existing.  If,  however,  the  audience 
is  predisposed  or  even  willing  to  accept  the  doc- 
trine advocated,  very  little  but  constructive  proof 
may  be  necessary. 

In  debate,  the  side  that  has  the  burden  of  proof 
will  usually  have  more  use  for  constructive  argu- 
210 


Refutation 

ment,  and  the  opposite  side  will  have  more  use  for 
refutation.  This  statement  will  not  always  hold 
true,  however,  for  the  rule  will  vary  under  different 
circumstances ;  a  debater  must,  therefore,  hold  him- 
self in  readiness  to  meet  whatever  contingencies 
arise.  Debate  may  be  likened  to  the  play  of  two 
boys  building  houses  with  blocks;  each  boy  builds 
the  best  house  he  can,  and  at  times  attempts  to 
overthrow  the  work  of  his  playmate.  The  one  that 
has  the  better  structure  when  the  game  ends  comes 
off  victorious.  Thus  it  is  in  debate;  each  debater 
must  do  his  best  both  to  build  up  his  own  argument 
and  to  destroy  his  opponent's. 

To  handle  refutation  successfully,  either  in 
written  argument  or  in  debate,  one  must  know  what 
to  refute  and  what  to  leave  alone.  The  general 
rule  governing  this  matter  is:  Refute  only  those 
arguments  which  are  essential  to  the  proof  of  the 
other  side.  All  trivial  ideas,  even  all  misstatements 
which  if  refuted  would  not  destroy  any  fundamen- 
tal process  of  an  opponent's  proof,  should  pass  un- 
noticed. To  mention  them  means  waste  of  time 
and  effort.  It  is  not  uncommon  for  a  debater  to 
make  trivial  errors  intentionally,  in  the  hope  that 
his  opponent  will  consume  valuable  time  in  refuting 
them  and  thus  allow  his  main  argument  to  go  un- 
211 


Refutation 

scathed.  When  this  stratagem  succeeds,  the  one 
who  made  the  mistakes  can  acknowledge  that  he 
was  wrong  in  those  unimportant  details,  and  yet 
show  that  his  fundamental  arguments  have  not  been 
overthrown.  While  arguing  on  a  political  question, 
an  intercollegiate  debater  once  laid  considerable 
stress  on  an  opinion  expressed  by  Woodrow  Wilson, 
"  President,"  as  he  stated,  "  of  Harvard  Univer- 
sity." His  opponent,  of  course,  might  have  held 
this  statement  up  to  ridicule,  but  such  an  exposure 
would  have  been  impolitic,  in  that  it  would  have 
in  no  wise  impaired  the  value  of  Mr.  Wilson's 
opinion  as  evidence.  Another  debater,  not  so  wise, 
once  spent  considerable  time  in  correcting  an  op- 
ponent who  had  said  that  the  Steel  Trust  was 
formed  in  1891  instead  of  in  1901,  as  was  the  case. 
As  these  dates  had  no  vital  bearing  on  the  question 
at  issue,  the  error  should  have  been  allowed  to  pass. 
The  temptation  to  point  out  the  flaws  that  are  most 
obvious  is  always  great,  but  unless  by  so  doing  one 
can  knock  out  the  props  on  which  an  opponent's 
proof  rests,  such  an  attack  accomplishes  nothing. 
Another  common  error  in  refutation  consists  in 
"  answering  one's  self."  A  person  is  guilty  of  this 
fault  whenever  he  misstates  an  opponent's  argu- 
ment, either  because  he  does  not  understand  it  or 
212 


Refutation 

through  design,  and  then  refutes  this  misstatement. 
The  folly  of  such  procedure  is  made  apparent  by 
merely  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  original 
argument  has  been  garbled  but  in  no  wise  refuted. 
An  opponent  can  convict  the  one  who  has  "  an- 
swered himself  "  either  of  unpardonable  ignorance 
about  the  subject  or  of  downright  dishonesty. 

To  guard  against  these  errors  of  refuting  un- 
important details  and  of  "  answering  one's  self," 
it  is  always  well  to  reduce  an  opponent's  argument 
to  the  form  of  a  brief.  If  the  argument  is  in  print, 
this  task  is  comparatively  simple;  if  the  argument 
is  oral,  the  task  will  be  harder  but  will  still  present 
no  serious  difficulties  to  one  who  is  used  to  draw- 
ing briefs.  When  all  the  ideas  have  been  arranged 
in  the  form  of  headings  and  subheadings,  and  the 
relation  between  the  ideas  has  been  indicated  by 
means  of  numbers  and  letters,  then  the  arguer  can 
quickly  decide  what  points  he  ought  to  refute  and 
what  ones  he  can  refute. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  the  headings  marked 
with  the  Roman  numerals  contain  the  most  impor- 
tant ideas,  and  should,  therefore,  be  overthrown  as 
far  as  possible.  There  are  three  ways  of  dis- 
posing of  them:  one  way  is  to  state  that  the  head- 
ings are  false  and  then  bring  on  new' proof  to  show 
213 


Refutation 

their  falsity;  the  second  way  is  to  call  attention  to 
the  subheadings  with  which  the  opponent  has  bol- 
stered up  the  main  headings,  and  then,  by  proving 
these  subheads  false,  allow  the  main  heads  to  fall 
to  the  ground;  the  third  way  is  to  admit  that  the 
subheads  are  true  and  then  show  that  the  infer- 
ences drawn  from  them  are  unwarranted. 

To  illustrate:  A  part  of  an  argument  on  the 
affirmative  side  of  the  proposition,  "  Resolved,  That 
students  in  American  colleges  should  be  excused 
from  final  examinations  in  all  subjects  in  which 
they  have  attained  a  daily  grade  of  at  least  eighty- 
five  per  cent.,"  might  be  reduced  to  the  following 
brief  form: — 
I.  This  rule  would  be  of  great  intellectual  benefit 

to  college  students,  for 

A.     They  would  master  their  work  more  thor- 
oughly, because 
I.     They  would  study  harder  during  the 

term. 

The  first  method  of  overthrowing  the  heading 
indicated  by  (I)  would  be  to  attack  it  directly. 
This  attack  might  consist  of  opinions  of  prominent 
educators  who,  on  theoretical  grounds,  do  not  be- 
lieve an  intellectual  benefit  would  result  from  the 
adoption  of  such  a  rule;  of  the  opinions  of  edu- 
214 


Refutation 

cators  who  have  tried  the  rule  and  declare  that  it 
is  an  intellectual  detriment;  and  of  a  course  of 
reasoning  which  would  show  that  this  system  would 
rob  the  students  exempted  of  the  great  intellectual 
benefit  that  is  derived  from  the  preparation  for  an 
examination  and  from  the  taking  of  an  examina- 
tion. 

The  second  method  would  be  to  show  that  (i)j 
is  not  true;  therefore  (A)  would  be  false,  and  (I); 
would  be  left  entirely  unsupported. 

Under  the  third  method  the  arguer  would  admit 
the  truth  of  (i),  but  would  deny  that  the  truth  of 
(A)  is  established  by  it;  therefore  (I)  would  be  un- 
supported. 

Whenever  a  subheading  is  attacked,  it  is  always 
very  essential  to  show  that  the  attack  is  made  simply 
because  this  subheading  serves  as  a  foundation 
for  the  main  heading.  In  this  particular  argument, 
refutation  according  to  the  second  and  third 
methods  might  read  about  as  follows :  "  The  con- 
tention of  the  affirmative  that  the  eighty-five  per 
cent,  rule  should  be  adopted  because  it  would  re- 
sult in  an  intellectual  improvement  among  college 
students,  rests  on  the  supposition  that  students 
would  study  harder  during  the  term,  and  for  that 
reason  would  more  thoroughly  master  their  sub- 
215 


Refutation 

jects.  This  reasoning  is  erroneous  because,  in  the 
first  place,  as  I  will  show,  but  very  few  students,  if 
any,  would  study  harder  during  the  term;  and,  in 
the  second  place,  even  if  they  did,  those  exempted 
would  not  have  mastered  their  work  so  completely 
at  the  end  of  the  year  as  they  would  have  if  they 
had  taken  an  examination." 

From  the  preceding,  it  is  apparent  that  refutation 
consists  of  discrediting  evidence  and  attacking 
reasoning.  The  ways  to  overthrow  evidence  will 
be  considered  first. 

EVIDENCE. 

It  is  taken  for  granted  that  the  evidence  mustered 
by  the  opponent  is  sufficient,  if  not  overthrown,  to 
establish  his  side  of  the  discussion.  Of  course,  if 
enough  evidence  for  this  purpose  is  lacking,  one 
has  only  to  call  attention  to  this  fundamental  weak- 
ness in  order  to  overthrow  the  argument  then  and 
there.  The  rules,  therefore,  for  testing  evidence  as- 
sume that  the  opponent  has  cited  facts  that,  if  not 
combated,  will  establish  his  case. 

These    tests    are   the    same   as    those    given    in 
Chapter  VI ;  a  hasty  review  of  them,  however,  may 
be  serviceable  at  this  point. 
216 


Refutation 

I.    Tests  of  the  sources  of  evidence. 

A.  Is  the  witness  competent  to  give  a  trust- 

worthy account  of  the  matter? 

B.  Is  the  witness  willing  to  give  an  accurate 

account  ? 

I.    Does  he  have  any  personal  interest  in 
the  case? 

C.  Is  the  witness  prejudiced? 

D.  Does  the  witness  have  a  good  reputation 

for  honesty  and  accuracy? 
II.     Internal  tests  of  evidence. 

A.  Is  the  evidence  consistent  (a)  with  itself, 

(b)  with  known  facts,  (c)  with  human 
experience  ? 

B.  Is  it  first-hand  evidence? 

C.  Can  the  evidence  be  classed  as  especially 

valuable  ? 

1.  Does  it  consist  of  hurtful  admissions? 

2.  Is  it  undesigned  evidence? 

3.  Is  it  negative  evidence? 
III.     Test  of  argument  from  authority. 

A.  Is  the  witness  an  acknowledged  author- 
ity on  the  subject  about  which  he  testi- 
fies? 

To  overthrow  or  weaken  argument  from  author- 
ity, one  may  either  discredit  its  source  or  bring  to 
217 


Refutation 

light  some  inconsistency  in  the  statement  itself. 
Usually  the  former  method  alone  is  possible.  To 
accomplish  this  result,  one  may  show  that  the  wit- 
ness spoke  from  insufficient  knowledge  of  the  mat- 
ter, or  was  prejudiced,  or  had  some  personal  in- 
terest in  the  case.  Counter  authority  will  also  be  of 
assistance.  The  following  quotation  taken  from  a 
college  debate  furnishes  the  student  a  good  example 
of  how  to  handle  this  sort  of  refutation. 

"  The  argument  has  been  advanced  that  the 
South  does  not  need  the  foreign  laborer,  and  this 
argument  has  been  supported  by  the  words  of  Mr. 
Prescott  F.  Hall.  We  would  call  the  attention  of 
the  audience  and  the  judges  to  the  fact  that  since 
Prescott  F.  Hall  is  Secretary  of  the  Immigration 
Restriction  League,  it  would  be  to  his  interest  to 
make  this  assertion.  Why  do  not  our  opponents 
refer  to  impartial  and  unprejudiced  men,  men  like 
Dr.  Allen  McLaughlin,  a  United  States  immigration 
official,  who  makes  just  the  opposite  statement?" 

REASONING. 

I.     Induction. 

A.    Have  enough  instances  of  the  class  under 
consideration  been  investigated  to  es- 
218 


Refutation 

tablish  the  existence  of  a  general  law? 
B.     Have  enough  instances  been  investigated 
to  establish  the  probable  existence  of  a 
general  law? 
II.    Deduction. 

A.  Are  both  premises  true? 

B.  Is  the  fact  stated  in  the  minor  premise  an 

instance  of  the  general  law  expressed 
in  the  major  premise? 

III.  Antecedent  probability. 

A.  Is     the     assigned     cause     of     sufficient 

strength  to  produce  the  alleged  effect? 

B.  May  some  other  cause  intervene  and  pre- 

vent the  action  of  the  assigned  cause? 

IV,  Sign. 

A.  Argument  from  effect  to  cause. 

1.  Is  the  assigned  cause  adequate  to  pro- 

duce the  observed  effect? 

2.  Could  the  observed  effect  have  re- 

sulted from  any  other  cause  than 
the  one  assigned  ? 

B.  Argument  from  effect  to  effect. 

I.  Do  the  combined  tests  of  argument 
from  effect  to  cause  and  from  cause 
to  effect  hold? 


219 


Refutation 

V.    Example. 

A.  Is  there  any  fundamental  difference  be- 
tween the  case  in  hand  and  the  case 
cited  as  an  example? 

FALLACIES. 

A  fallacy  is  an  error  in  reasoning.  The  preced- 
ing part  of  this  chapter  has  already  suggested  tests 
that  will  expose  many  such  faults,  but  there  are  a 
few  errors  which,  because  of  their  frequency  or 
their  inadaptability  to  other  classification,  demand 
separate  treatment.  This  book  follows  the  plan  of 
most  other  texts  on  argumentation,  and  treats  these 
errors  under  a  separate  head  marked  fallacies.  To 
detect  a  fallacy  in  another's  argument  is  to  weaken, 
if  not  to  destroy,  his  case;  to  avoid  making  a  fal- 
lacy in  one's  own  argument  means  escape  from  hu- 
miliation and  defeat.  Hence,  a  knowledge  of  fal- 
lacies is  one  of  the  most  essential  parts  of  a  debater's 
equipment. 

The  classification  given  here  does  not  pretend  to 
'be  exhaustive;  it  does,  however,  consider  the  most 
common  and  insidious  breaches  of  reasoning  that 
are  likely  to  occur,  and  the  following  pages  should 
be  studied  with  great  care. 
220 


Refutation 

I.  Begging  the  Question.  (Petitio  Principii.) 
i.  Mere  assumption.  Begging  the  question 
means  assuming  the  truth  of  that  which  needs 
proof.  This  fallacy  is  found  in  its  simplest  form 
in  epithets  and  appellations.  The  lawyer  who 
speaks  of  "  the  criminal  on  trial  for  his  life,"  begs 
the  question  in  that  he  assumes  the  prisoner  to  be 
a  criminal  before  the  court  has  rendered  a  verdict. 
Those  writers  who  have  recently  discussed  "the 
brutal  game  of  football "  without  having  first  ad- 
duced a  particle  of  proof  to  show  that  the  game  is 
brutal,  fall  into  the  same  error.  An  unpardonable 
instance  of  question-begging  lies  in  the  following 
introduction,  once  given  by  a  debater  who  was  at- 
tacking the  proposition,  "Resolved,  That  the  fed- 
eral government  should  own  and  operate  the  rail- 
roads in  the  United  States  " : — 

"We  of  the  negative  will  show  that  the  efficient  and 
highly  beneficial  system  of  private  ownership  should  be 
maintained,  and  that  the  impracticable  system  of  govern- 
ment ownership  can  never  succeed  in  the  United  States  or 
in  any  similarly  governed  country." 

Private  ownership  and  government  ownership 
may  possess  these  qualities  attributed  to  them,  but 
the  debater  has  no  right  to  make  such  an  assump- 

221 


Refutation 

tion;  he  must  prove  that  they  have  these  qualities. 

2.  Assumption  used  as  proof.     Such  barefaced 
assumptions  as  the  preceding  usually  do  little  dam- 
age except  to  the  one  who  makes  them.     They  are 
not  likely  to  lead  astray  an  audience  of  average  in- 
telligence; on  the  other  hand,  they  do  stamp  the 
arguer  as  prejudiced  and  illogical.     But  when  as- 
sumptions are  used  as  proof,  hidden  in  the  midst  of 
quantities  of  other  material",  they  may  produce  an 
unwarranted  effect  upon  one  who  is  not  a  clear 
thinker,  or  who  is  off  his  guard.     If,  without  show- 
ing that  football  is  brutal,  one  calls  it  an  extremely 
brutal  game,  and  then  urges  its  abolishment  on  the 
ground  of  its  brutality,  he  has  used  an  assumption 
as  proof,  and  has,  therefore,  begged  the  question. 
The  debater  who  stated,  without  proving,  that  vast 
numbers  of  unskilled  laborers  were  needed  in  the 
United  States,  and  then  urged  this  as  a  reason  why 
no  educational  test  should  be  applied  to  immigrants 
coming  to  this  country,  furnished  an  example  of  the 
same  fallacy. 

3.  Unwarranted  assumption  of  the  truth  of  a 
suppressed  premise.     The  student  is  already  fa- 
miliar with  the  enthymeme.     The  enthymeme  con- 
stitutes   a    valid    form    of    reasoning    only    when 
the    suppressed    premise    is    recognized    as    true. 

222 


Refutation 

Therefore,  whenever  an  arguer  makes  use  of  the 
enthymeme  without  attempting  to  establish  a  sup- 
pressed premise  whose  truth  is  not  admitted,  he 
has  argued  fallaciously.  This  is  a  third  method 
of  begging  the  question.  To  illustrate:  In  advo- 
cating the  abolishment  of  football  from  the  list  of 
college  athletic  sports,  one  might  reason,  "  Foot- 
ball should  be  abolished  because  it  obviously  ex- 
poses a  player  to  possible  injury."  The  suppressed 
premise  in  this  case  would  be:  All  sports  which 
expose  a  player  to  possible  injury  should  be  abol- 
ished. Failure  to  prove  the  truth  of  this  unadmit- 
ted statement  constitutes  the  fallacy. 

4.  Assumption  equivalent  to  the  proposition 
to  be  proved.  It  is  not  surprising  that  a  man  car- 
ried away  with  excitement  or  prejudice  should 
make  assumptions  that  he  does  not  even  try  to  sub- 
stantiate, but  that  anyone  should  assume  the  truth 
of  the  very  conclusion  that  he  has  set  out  to  es- 
tablish seems  incredible.  Such  a  form  of  begging 
the  question,  however,  does  frequently  occur. 
Sometimes  the  fallacy  is  so  hidden  in  a  mass  of 
illustration  and  rhetorical  embellishment  that  at  first 
it  is  not  apparent;  but  stripped  of  its  verbal  finery, 
it  stands  out  very  plainly.  The  following  passage 
written  on  the  affirmative  side  of  the  proposition, 
223 


Refutation 

"  Resolved,  That  the  college  course  should  be  short- 
ened to  three  years,"  will  serve  as  a  particularly  flag- 
rant illustration : — 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  in  the  world  of  to-day  time 
is  an  essential  factor  in  the  race  for  success.  No  young 
man  can  afford  to  dawdle  for  four  long  years  in  acquiring 
a  so-called  "higher"  education.  Three-fourths  of  that 
time  is,  if  anything,  more  than  sufficient  in  which  to 
attain  all  the  graces  and  culture  that  the  progressive  man 
needs. 

It  is  evident  that  the  "  argument "  in  this  case 
consists  of  nothing  more  than  a  repetition  of  the 
proposition. 

5.  Arguing  in  a  circle.  Another  phase  of  beg- 
ging the  question  consists  of  using  an  assumption  as 
proof  of  a  proposition  and  of  then  quoting  the 
proposition  as  proof  of  the  assumption.  Two  as- 
sertions are  made,  neither  of  which  is  substanti- 
ated by  any  real  proof,  but  each  of  which  is  used 
to  prove  the  other.  This  fallacy  probably  occurs 
most  frequently  in  conversation.  Consider  the  fol- 
lowing : — 

A.  "  The  proposed  system  of  taxation  is  an  ex- 
cellent one." 

B.  "  What  makes  you  think  so?  " 

A.  "  Because  it  will  be  adopted  by  the  legisla- 
ture." 

224 


Refutation 

B.    "  How  do  you  know  it  will  ?  " 

A.  "  Because  it  is  a  good  system  and  our  legis- 
lators are  men  of  sense." 

This  fallacy  occurs  when  one  proves  the  author- 
ity of  the  church  from  the  testimony  of  the  scrip- 
tures, and  then  establishes  the  authenticity  of  the 
scriptures  by  the  testimony  of  the  church.  A  sim- 
ilar fallacy  has  been  pointed  out  in  the  works  of 
Plato.  In  Phado,  he  demonstrates  the  immortality 
of  the  soul  from  its  simplicity,  and  in  the  Republic, 
he  demonstrates  the  simplicity  of  the  soul  from  its 
immortality.  The  following  fragment  of  a  brief 
argues  in  a  circle : — 

I.  This  principle  is  in  accordance  with  the  princi- 

ples of  the  Democratic  party,  since 
A.    The  leader  of  the  Democratic  party  be- 
lieves in  it,  for 

I.  As  the  leader  of  the  party,  he  natu- 
rally believes  in  Democratic  princi- 
ples. 

II.  Ambiguous    Terms.     (Equivocation;    Con- 

fusion of  Terms.) 

The  fallacy  of  ambiguous  terms  consists  of  using 
the  same  term  in  two  distinct  senses  in  the  same 
argument.    Thus  if  one  were  to  argue  that  "  no 
13  225 


Refutation 

designing  person  ought  to  be  trusted;  engravers 
are  by  profession  designers;  therefore  they  ought 
not  to  be  trusted,"  it  is  quite  apparent  that  the 
term  "  design "  means  totally  different  things  in 
the  two  premises.  The  same  fallacy  occurs  in  the 
argument,  "  Since  the  American  people  believe  in  a 
republican  form  of  government,  they  should  vote  the 
Republican  ticket."  Again: — 

"  Interference  with  another  man's  business  is  il- 
legal; 

"  Underselling  interferes  with  another  man's  busi- 
ness; 

"  Therefore  underselling  is  illegal." 

J.  S.  Mill  in  his  System  of  Logic  discusses  the 
fallacy  of  ambiguous  terms  with  great  care.  In  part 
he  says : — 

The  mercantile  public  are  frequently  led  into  this  fal- 
lacy by  the  phrase  "scarcity  of  money."  In  the  language 
of  commerce,  "money"  has  two  meanings:  currency,  or 
the  circulating  medium;  and  capital  seeking  investment, 
especially  investment  on  loan.  In  this  last  sense,  the 
word  is  used  when  the  "money  market"  is  spoken  of, 
and  when  the  "value  of  money"  is  said  to  be  high  or 
low,  the  rate  of  interest  being  meant.  The  consequence 
of  this  ambiguity  is,  that  as  soon  as  scarcity  of  money 
in  the  latter  of  these  senses  begins  to  be  felt, —  as  soon 
as  there  is  difficulty  of  obtaining  loans,  and  the  rate  of 
interest  is  high, —  it  is  concluded  that  this  must  arise  from 
causes  acting  upon  the  quantity  of  money  in  the  other 

226 


Refutation 

and  more  popular  sense;  that  the  circulating  medium 
must  have  diminished  in  quantity,  or  ought  to  be  in- 
creased. I  am  aware  that,  independently  of  the  double 
meaning  of  the  term,  there  are  in  the  facts  themselves 
some  peculiarities,  giving  an  apparent  support  to  this 
error;  but  the  ambiguity  of  the  language  stands  on  the 
very  threshold  of  the  subject,  and  intercepts  all  attempts 
to  throw  light  upon  it. 

As  countless  words  and  expressions  have  sev- 
eral meanings,  there  is  almost  no  limit  to  the  con- 
fusion which  this  fallacy  can  cause.  Some  of  the 
most  common  terms  that  are  used  ambiguously  are 
right,  liberty,  law,  representative,  theory,  church, 
state,  student. 

By  carefully  defining  all  terms  that  have  more 
than  one  meaning  and  by  insisting  on  a  rigid  ad- 
herence to  the  one  meaning  wherever  the  term  is 
used,  a  debater  can  easily  avoid  fallacies  of  this 
sort  in  his  own  argument  and  expose  those  of  his 
opponent. 

III.    False  Cause. 

The  fallacy  of  false  cause  occurs  whenever  that 
which  could  in  no  way  bring  about  the  effect  that  is 
being  established  is  urged  as  its  cause.  This  fal- 
lacy in  its  most  obvious  form  is  found  only  in  the 
arguments  of  careless  and  illogical  thinkers. 
Some  college  students  occasionally  draw  briefs 
227 


Refutation 

that  contain   such   reasoning  as  the   following: — 

I.  The  Panama  canal  should  be  of  the  sea-level  rather 

than  of  the  lock  type,  because 

A.  The   Panama  canal  will  do  away  with  the  long 
voyage  around  the  Horn. 

I.  Southerners   are   justified   in   keeping   the   franchise 
away  from  the  negro,  for 

A.  Negroes  should  never  have  been  brought  to  Amer- 

ica. 

B.  The    Fifteenth    Amendment   to    the    Constitution 

ought  not  to  have  been  passed. 

The  error  of  such  plainly  absurd  reasoning  as 
occurs  in  the  preceding  illustrations  needs  no  ex- 
planation. There  is  one  form  of  the  fallacy  of 
false  cause,  however,  that  is  much  more  common 
and  insidious  and  therefore  deserves  special  treat- 
ment. 

Post  hoc  ergo  propter  hoc.  (After  this,  there- 
fore, on  account  of  this.)  This  phase  of  the  fallacy 
consists  of  the  assumption  that  since  cause  pre- 
cedes effect  what  has  preceded  an  event  has  caused 
it.  The  most  frequent  occurrence  of  the  error  is 
to  be  found  in  superstitions.  If  some  one  meets 
with  an  accident  while  taking  a  journey  that  began 
on  Friday,  many  people  will  argue  that  the  accident 
is  the  effect  of  the  unlucky  day.  Some  farmers  be- 
lieve their  crops  will  not  prosper  unless  the  planting 
228 


Refutation 

is  done  when  the  moon  is  in  a  certain  quarter; 
sailors  often  refuse  to  embark  in  a  renamed  ves- 
sel. Because  in  the  past,  one  event  has  been 
known  to  follow  another,  it  is  argued  that  the  first 
event  was  the  cause  of  the  second,  and  that  the  sec- 
ond event  will  invariably  follow  the  first. 

But  this  fallacy  does  not  find  its  only  expression 
in  superstitions.  To  post  hoc  reasoning  is  due  much 
of  the  popularity  of  patent  medicines.  Political 
beliefs,  even,  are  often  generated  in  the  same  way; 
prosperity  follows  the  passing  of  a  certain  law, 
and  people  jump  to  the  conclusion  that  this  one 
law  has  caused  the  "  good  times."  Some  dema- 
gogues go  so  far  as  to  say  that  education  among 
the  Indians  is  responsible  for  the  increased  death 
rate  of  many  of  the  tribes. 

A  slightly  different  phase  of  the  post  hoc  fal- 
lacy consists  in  attributing  the  existence  of  a  certain 
condition  to  a  single  preceding  event,  when  at  the 
most  this  event  could  have  been  only  a  partial 
cause  of  what  followed,  and  may  not  have  been  a 
cause  at  all.  A  medicine  that  could  not  have  ef- 
fected a  cure  may  have  been  of  some  slight  bene- 
fit. A  law  that  could  not  possibly  have  been  the 
sole  cause  of  "  good  times  "  may  have  had  a  ben- 


229 


Refutation 

eficial  effect.  To  avoid  this  fallacy,  one  must  be 
sure  not  only  that  the  assigned  cause  is  operative, 
but  that  it  is  also  adequate. 

In  the  following  passage,  Harper's  Weekly,  for 
March  5,  1894,  points  out  the  error  in  the  reason- 
ing made  by  several  college  presidents  who,  after 
compiling  statistics,  stated  that  a  college  educa- 
tion increased  a  man's  chance  of  success  from  one 
in  ten  thousand  to  one  in  forty : — 

Not  many  persons  doubt  any  longer  that  an  American 
college  education  is  an  advantage  to  most  youths  who 
can  get  it,  but  in  these  attempts  to  estimate  statistically 
what  college  education  does  for  men  there  is  a  good  deal 
of  confusing  of  post  hoc  and  propter  hoc.  Define  success 
as  you  will,  a  much  larger  proportion  of  American  col- 
lege men  win  it  than  of  men  who  don't  go  to  college, 
but  how  much  college  training  does  for  those  successful 
men  is  still  debatable.  Remember  that  they  are  a  picked 
lot,  the  likeliest  children  of  parents  whose  ability  or 
desire  to  send  their  children  to  college  is  evidence  of 
better  fortune,  or  at  least  of  higher  aspirations  than  the 
average.  And  because  their  parents  are,  as  a  rule,  more 
or  less  prosperous  and  well  educated,  they  get  and  would 
get,  whether  they  went  to  college  or  not,  a  better  than 
average  start  in  life.  .  .  . 

If  one  boy  out  of  a  family  of  four  goes  to  college, 
it  is  the  clever  one.  The  boys  who  might  go  to  college 
and  don't  are  commonly  the  lazy  ones  who  won't  study. 
The  colleges  get  nowadays  a  large  proportion  of  the 
best  boys  of  the  strongest  families.  The  best  boys  of 
the  strongest  families  would  win  far  more  than  their 

230 


Refutation 

proportionate   share   of   success    even   if   there   were   no 
colleges. 

An  exposure  of  similarly  fallacious  reasoning  is 
made  by  Edward  M.  Shepard  in  The  Atlantic 
Monthly  for  October,  1904. 

The  Republican  argument  is  that  the  whole  edifice  of 
our  prosperity  depends  upon  high  protective  or  prohibitive 
duties,  and  that  to  them  is  due  our  industrial  progress. 
Is  it  not,  indeed,  a  disparagement  of  the  self-depending 
faculties  of  the  American  people  thus  to  affirm  that,  in 
spite  of  their  marvelous  advantages,  they  would  have 
failed  in  industrial  life  unless  by  force  of  law  they  could 
have  prevented  the  competition  with  them  of  other  peo- 
ples? It  is  only  by  the  sophistry  to  which  I  have  re- 
ferred that  this  disparagement  is  justified.  It  is  that  old 
argument  of  veritable  folly  that,  because  event  Z  follows 
event  W,  as  it  follows  events  A  and  B  and  many  besides 
A,  therefore  W  is  the  sole  cause  of  Z.  Theory  or  no 
theory,  the  Republican  says  that  we  have  in  fact  grown 
rich  by  protection,  because  in  our  country  prosperity  and 
protective  duties  have  existed  together.  They  ignore  every 
inconvenient  fact.  They  would  have  us  forget  that  each 
of  the  industrial  depressions  of  1873-78  and  1893-96  fol- 
lowed long  operation  of  a  high  protective  tariff.  They 
ignore  the  contribution  of  soil  and  climate  to  our  pros- 
perity, the  vast  increase  which  modern  inventions  and 
improved  carrying  facilities  have,  the  world  over,  brought 
to  the  productivity  of  labor,  and  here  in  the  United 
States  have  brought  more  than  anywhere  else.  They 
ignore  the  superior  skill  and  alertness  of  the  American 
workman  and  the  wonderful  extent  to  which  he  has  been 
stimulated  by  the  conditions  and  ideals  of  our  democracy. 
They  ignore  the  freedom  of  trade,  which,  since  1789,  the 
231 


Refutation 

Federal  Constitution  has  made  operative  over  our  entire 
country, —  by  far  the  most  important  area  of  free  trade 
ever  known, —  and  which  everyone  to-day  knows  to  be 
a  prime  condition  of  the  prosperity  of  our  forty-five 
commonwealths. 

From  what  has  been  said  it  is  obvious  that  it  is 
never  safe  to  account  for  an  occurrence  or  a  con- 
dition by  merely  referring  to  something  that  accom- 
panies it  or  precedes  it.  There  must  be  a  connec- 
tion between  the  alleged  cause  and  the  effect,  and 
this  connection  must  be  causal;  otherwise,  both 
may  be  the  result  of  the  same  cause.  The  cause 
must  also  be  adequate;  and  it  must,  moreover,  be 
evident  that  the  result  has  not  been  produced, 
wholly  or  partially,  by  some  other  cause  or  causes. 

IV.  Composition  and  Division. 
Composition.  The  fallacy  of  composition  con- 
sists of  attributing  to  a  whole  that  which  has  been 
proved  only  of  a  part.  To  condemn  or  to  approve 
of  a  fraternity  because  of  the  conduct  of  only  a 
few  of  its  members,  to  say  that  what  is  advanta- 
geous for  certain  states  in  the  Union  would  there- 
fore be  beneficial  for  the  United  States  as  a  whole, 
to  reason  from  the  existence  of  a  few  millionaires 
that  the  English  nation  is  wealthy,  would  be  to  fall 
mto  this  fallacy.  Furthermore,  it  is  fallacious  to 
232 


Refutation 

think  that  because  something  is  true  of  each  mem- 
ber of  a  class  taken  distributively,  the  same  thing 
holds  true  of  the  class  taken  collectively.  It  is  not 
logical  to  argue  that  because  each  member  of  a  jury 
is  very  likely  to  judge  erroneously,  the  jury  as  a 
whole  is  also  very  likely  to  judge  erroneously. 
Because  each  witness  to  an  event  is  liable  to  give 
false  or  incorrect  evidence,  it  is  unreasonable  to 
think  that  no  confidence  can  be  placed  in  the  con- 
current testimony  of  a  number  of  witnesses. 

Division.  The  fallacy  of  division  is  the  con- 
verse of  the  fallacy  of  composition.  It  consists  of 
attributing  to  a  part  that  which  has  been  proved 
of  the  whole.  For  instance,  Lancaster  county  is 
the  most  fertile  county  in  Pennsylvania,  but  that 
fact  by  itself  does  not  warrant  the  statement  that 
any  one  particular  farm  is  exceptionally  fertile. 
Because  the  people  of  a  country  are  suffering  from 
famine,  it  does  not  follow  that  one  particular  per- 
son is  thus  afflicted.  Again,  it  would  be  fallacious 
to  say :  It  is  admitted  that  the  judges  of  the  court 
of  appeal  cannot  misinterpret  the  law;  Richard 
Rowe  is  a  judge  of  the  court  of  appeal;  therefore 
he  cannot  misinterpret  the  law. 


233 


Refutation 

V.    Ignoring  the  Question.     (Ignoratio 
Elenchi.) 

An  arguer  is  said  to  ignore  the  question,  or  to 
argue  beside  the  point,  whenever  he  attempts  to 
prove  or  disprove  anything  except  the  proposition 
under  discussion.  This  fallacy  may  arise  through 
carelessness  or  trickery.  An  unskilled  debater  will 
often  unconsciously  wander  away  from  his  subject ; 
and  an  unscrupulous  debater,  when  unable  to  de- 
fend his  position,  will  sometimes  cunningly  shift 
his  ground  and  argue  upon  a  totally  new  proposi- 
tion, which  is,  however,  so  similar  to  the  original 
one  that  in  the  heat  of  controversy  the  change  is 
hardly  noticeable.  A  discussion  on  the  subject, 
"  The  boycott  is  a  legitimate  means  of  securing 
concessions  from  employers,"  which  attempted  to 
show  the  effectiveness  of  the  boycott,  would  ignore 
the  question.  Likewise,  in  a  discussion  on  the 
proposition,  "  The  average  college  student  could  do 
in  three  years  the  work  now  done  in  four,"  any 
proof  showing  the  desirability  of  such  a  crowding 
together  of  college  work  would  be  beside  the 
point. 

In  the  following  passage  Macaulay  holds  up  to 
scorn  certain  arguments  which  contain  this  fallacy : — 
234 


Refutation 

The  advocates  of  Charles,  like  the  advocates  of  other 
malefactors  against  whom  overwhelming  evidence  is  pro- 
duced, generally  decline  all  controversy  about  facts,  and 
content  themselves  with  calling  testimony  to  character. 

We  charge  him  with  having  broken  his  coronation 
oath;  and  we  are  told  that  he  kept  his  marriage  vow! 
We  accuse  him  of  having  given  up  his  people  to  the 
merciless  inflictions  of  the  most  hot-headed  and  hard- 
hearted of  prelates;  and  the  defence  is,  that  he  took  his 
little  son  on  his  knees  and  kissed  him!  We  censure  him 
for  having  violated  the  articles  of  the  Petition  of  Rights, 
after  having,  for  good  and  valuable  consideration,  prom- 
ised to  obey  them;  and  we  are  informed  that  he  was  ac- 
customed to  hear  prayers  at  six  o'clock  in  the  morning! 

Whenever  an  arguer  avoids  the  question  at  is- 
sue and  makes  an  attack  upon  the  character,  prin- 
ciples, or  former  beliefs  or  personal  peculiarities  of 
his  opponent,  he  commits  the  special  form  of  this 
fallacy  known  as  argumentum  ad  hominem.  It  is 
obviously  fallacious  to  reason  that  a  principle  is 
unsound  because  it  is  upheld  by  an  untrustworthy 
advocate,  or  because  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  ad- 
vocate's former  beliefs  and  practices.  Honesty  is 
a  worthy  principle,  even  though  advocated  by  a 
thief.  The  duty  of  industry  is  no  less  binding 
because  it  is  advocated  by  an  idler.  Lawyers  often 
commit  this  error  by  seeking  to  discredit  the  op- 
posing attorney.  Campaign  speakers  frequently 
attempt  to  overthrow  the  opposing  party's  platform 

235 


Refutation 

by  showing  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  party's 
previous  measures  and  declarations.  To  bring  in 
such  irrelevant  matter  is  to  ignore  the  question. 

Closely  allied  to  argumentum  ad  hominem  is  an- 
other phase  of  ignoring  the  question  called  argu- 
mentum ad  populum.  This  fallacy  consists  of  using 
before  a  certain  audience  statements  which  will 
strongly  appeal  to  their  prejudices  and  partisan 
views,  but  which  are  not  generally  accepted  facts 
and  which  would  undoubtedly  meet  with  strong  op- 
position elsewhere.  A  speaker  who  brings  in  this 
kind  of  argument  makes  use  neither  of  reasoning 
nor  of  legitimate  persuasion.  He  neglects  his 
proposition  and  attempts  to  excite  the  feelings  of  his 
audience  to  such  an  extent  as  to  render  them  in- 
capable of  forming  a  dispassionate  judgment  upon 
the  matter  in  hand. 

In  general,  it  is  necessary  only  to  point  out  a 
fallacy  to  weaken  an  argument.  Sometimes,  how- 
ever, the  error  is  so  involved  and  so  hidden  that, 
though  it  is  apparent  to  one  who  is  arguing,  yet 
it  is  not  easily  made  apparent  to  the  audience.  In 
overcoming  this  difficulty,  arguers  often  resort  to 
certain  peculiar  devices  of  arranging  and  present- 
ing the  material  for  refutation.  Long  experience 

236 


Refutation 

has  shown  that  the  two  methods  given  here  are  of 
inestimable  value. 

I.    Reductio  ad   Absurdum.     (Reducing   to   an 
Absurdity.) 

The  method  of  refuting  an  argument  by  reduc- 
tio  ad  absurdum  consists  of  showing  that  the  argu- 
ment to  be  refuted,  if  true,  proves  not  only  the  con- 
clusion given,  but  also  other  conclusions  which  are 
manifestly  absurd.  For  example,  a  debater  once 
contended  that  colleges  should  not  seek  to  root  out 
professionalism  in  athletic  sports,  because,  by  com- 
ing in  contact  with  college  life,  professional  play- 
ers receive  considerable  benefit.  His  opponent  an- 
swered him  by  showing  that  the  same  argument 
carried  out  to  its  logical  conclusion  would  prove 
that  a  college  should  encourage  the  attendance  of 
criminals  and  degenerates  on  the  ground  that  they 
will  be  benefited  thereby.  Thus  he  reduced  the  ar- 
gument to  a  manifest  absurdity. 

At  one  time  the  officers  of  a  national  bank  permit- 
ted their  institution  to  be  wrecked  by  certifying, 
and  thereby  practically  guaranteeing,  the  checks 
of  a  firm  of  stock-holders  when  the  brokers  did 
not  have  the  money  represented  by  the  checks  de- 
237 


Refutation 

posited  in  the  bank.  This  was  distinctly  a  criminal 
offense.  The  brokers  failed,  and,  the  bank  having 
closed  its  doors  in  consequence,  the  president  of  the 
bank  was  brought  to  trial.  The  Atlantic  Monthly 
reduces  to  an  absurdity  the  chief  argument  used 
for  the  defense. 

A  jury  having  been  empaneled  to  try  him,  he  pleaded 
guilty,  his  counsel  urging,  as  a  reason  for  clemency,  that 
the  violation  of  this  statute  was  a  habit  of  the  New  York 
banks  in  the  Wall  Street  district,  and  that  if  the  wrecked 
bank  had  not  followed  this  law-breaking  custom  of  its 
competitors  the  stock  brokers  would  have  withdrawn  their 
account.  The  plea  was  successful,  and  the  officer  escaped 
with  a  small  fine.  Imagine  a  burglar  or  a  pickpocket 
urging  a  plea  for  clemency  based  on  the  general  business 
habits  and  customs  of  his  criminal  confreres !  * 

Mr.  E.  A.  Freeman,  the  historian,  once  made  the 
statement  that  English  literature  cannot  be  taught. 
His  course  of  reasoning  was  to  the  effect  that  it  is 
impossible  to  teach  a  subject  in  which  one  cannot 
be  examined;  and  he  maintained  that  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  hold  satisfactory  examinations  in  English 
literature,  since  this  is  a  subject  which  is  studied 
for  the  purpose  of  cultivating  the  taste,  educating 
the  sympathies,  and  enlarging  the  mind.  If  this 
reasoning  proves  anything,  it  has  been  pointed  out, 
it  proves  too  much.  What  Mr.  Freeman  says  of 

1The  Atlantic  Monthly,  Vol.  94,  p.  173. 

238 


Refutation 

English  literature  may  equally  well  be  said  of 
Latin,  Greek,  and  every  other  kind  of  literature. 
But  as  Latin  and  Greek  literature  have  been  suc- 
cessfully taught  for  hundreds  of  years,  Mr.  Free- 
man's argument  is  absurd. 

College  students  are  continually  urging  as  a  de- 
fense of  professionalism  in  their  own  athletic  teams 
the  argument  that  since  other  colleges  employ  pro- 
fessional players  it  is  necessary  for  them  to  do 
likewise.  By  carrying  this  argument  a  step  farther, 
one  could  show,  with  equal  reason,  that  since 
drinking,  stealing  and  cheating  are  prevalent  in 
other  colleges,  these  same  practices  should  also 
be  indulged  in  at  the  college  in  question.  In  the 
same  way  one  may  refute  by  reductio  ad  ab- 
surdum  all  such  arguments  as,  "  Custom  has  ren- 
dered the  spoils  system  desirable  " ;  "  The  preva- 
lency  of  the  high  license  law  shows  its  superiority 
to  prohibition  " ;  and  "  Since  in  the  past  all  college 
students  were  required  to  study  Latin  and  Greek, 
these  subjects  should  be  required  at  the  present 
time." 

II.    The  Dilemma. 

Another  device  an  arguer  will  often  find  useful 
in  refuting  an  opponent's  statement  is  the  dilemma. 

239 


Refutation 

In  the  dilemma  the  arguer  shows  that  the  statement 
he  wishes  to  disprove  can  be  true  only  through  the 
truth  of  at  least  one  of  several  possibilities.  He 
then  proves  that  these  possibilities  are  untenable, 
and  therefore  the  original  statement  is  false.  To 
represent  the  dilemma  with  letters :  The  truth  of  A 
rests  upon  the  truth  of  either  x  or  y ;  but  as  x  and 
y  are  both  false,  A  is  false.  Once  when  it  was  be- 
lieved in  certain  quarters  that  Japan  was  about 
to  undertake  a  war  against  the  United  States, 
many  people  maintained  that  if  Japan  desired  to  go 
to  war  she  was  amply  able  to  finance  such  an  un- 
dertaking. In  reply  to  this  contention,  a  certain 
newspaper,  making  use  of  the  dilemma,  said  that 
since  Japan  had  no  money  in  the  treasury  she 
could  meet  the  expenses  of  war  in  only  three  ways : 
either  by  contracting  a  large  debt,  or  by  increas- 
ing taxation,  or  by  indemnifying  herself  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  enemy.  The  paper  then  went  on  to 
prove  that  Japan  was  not  in  a  position  to  float  a 
large  loan,  that  taxes  in  Japan  were  already  as 
heavy  as  the  people  could  bear,  and  that  she  could 
not  hope,  at  least  for  a  long  time,  to  secure  any  in- 
demnity from  the  enemy.  Therefore  Japan  was  not 
in  a  financial  position  to  enter  upon  a  war  with  the 
United  States. 

240 


Refutation 

In  attempting  to  show  that  municipalities  do  not 
have  the  moral  right  to  own  and  operate  public 
utilities,  T.  Carpenter  Smith  uses  the  dilemma.  He 
says : — 

"Any  commercial  business  is  carried  on  either  at  a 
profit,  or  at  a  loss,  or  in  such  a  way  that  the  expenses 
equal  the  income.  If  the  city  business  of  gas  or  electric 
lighting  is  to  be  carried  on  at  a  profit,  then  those  citizens 
who  use  gas  or  electric  light  will  be  charged  a  high  price 
for  that  light,  in  order  to  pay  the  profit,  not  only  to  them- 
selves, but  also  to  those  who  do  not  use  it.  If  the  works 
are  to  be  carried  on  at  a  loss,  then  the  citizens  who  do 
not  use  the  gas  or  electric  light  will  pay  taxes  to  furnish 
a  convenience  or  economy  to  those  citizens  who  do  use 
it.  If  the  works  are  to  be  operated  exactly  at  cost,  then 
the  city  will  carry  on  a  business  from  which  it  will  get 
nothing,  but  in  which  it  will  have  to  take  the  labor  and 
risk  incident  to  such  a  business  in  order  to  benefit  only 
some  of  its  citizens,  furnishing  a  commodity  not  desired 
by  all." 

In  conversation  and  debate,  the  dilemma  is  fre- 
quently introduced  by  means  of  a  question.  The 
debater,  wishing  to  trap  his  opponent,  asks  him  a 
pertinent  question  which  previous  investigation  has 
shown  can  possibly  be  answered  in  only  two  or 
three  ways,  and  which  the  opponent  cannot  afford 
to  answer  at  all.  A  good  illustration  of  this  de- 
vice occurs  in  the  New  Testament. 

And  it  came  to  pass,  on  one  of  the  days,  as  he  was 
teaching   the    people   in   the   temple,    and   preaching   the 
16  241 


Refutation 

gospel,  there  came  upon  him  the  chief  priests  and  the 
scribes  with  the  elders;  and  they  spake,  saying  unto  him, 
Tell  us :  By  what  authority  doest  thou  these  things  ?  or 
who  is  he  that  gave  thee  this  authority?  And  he  an- 
swered and  said  unto  them,  I  also  will  ask  you  a  ques- 
tion; and  tell  me:  The  baptism  of  John,  was  it  from 
heaven,  or  from  men?  And  they  reasoned  with  them- 
selves, saying,  If  we  shall  say,  From  heaven;  he  will  say, 
Why  did  ye  not  believe  him?  But  if  we  shall  say,  From 
men;  all  the  people  will  stone  us:  for  they  be  persuaded 
that  John  was  a  prophet.  And  they  answered,  that  they 
knew  not  whence  it  was.  And  Jesus  said  unto  them, 
Neither  tell  I  you  by  what  authority  I  do  these  things.1 

During  the  Lincoln-Douglas  debates  in  1858, 
when  both  men  were  seeking  the  United  States 
senatorship  from  Illinois,  Lincoln,  wishing  either  to 
kill  Douglas's  senatorial  prospects  or  to  head  him 
off  from  the  presidency  two  years  later,  asked  him 
a  question  which  put  him  in  a  dilemma.  Ida  M. 
Tarbell  describes  the  question  as  follows : — 

"  Can  the  people  of  a  United  States  territory  in  any 
lawful  way,  against  the  wish  of  any  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  exclude  slavery  from  its  limits  prior  to  the 
formation  of  a  State  Constitution  ? "  Lincoln  had  seen 
the  irreconcilableness  of  Douglas's  own  measure  of  pop- 
ular sovereignty,  which  declared  that  the  people  of  a  ter- 
ritory should  be  left  to  regulate  their  domestic  concerns 
in  their  own  way  subject  only  to  the  Constitution,  and 
the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott 
case  that  slaves,  being  property,  could  not  under  the  Con- 
stitution be  excluded  from  a  territory.  He  knew  that  if 

*Luke  xx,  1-8. 

242 


Refutation 

Douglas  said  no  to  this  question,  his  Illinois  constituents 
would  never  return  him  to  the  Senate.  He  believed  that 
if  he  said  yes,  the  people  of  the  South  would  never 
vote  for  him  for  President  of  the  United  States. 

In  the  last  example,  Lincoln,  by  forcing  Douglas 
to  answer  this  question,  sought  to  destroy,  and, 
as  history  shows,  did  destroy,  the  popular  concep- 
tion of  Douglas's  fitness  for  public  office. 

Before  one  can  safely  use  the  dilemma  he  must 
carefully  investigate  every  phase  of  the  statement 
that  he  wishes  to  refute.  If  he  is  to  use  the  di- 
lemma directly,  he  must  consider  every  possibility  — 
commonly  called  the  horns  of  the  dilemma  —  upon 
which  the  truth  of  the  statement  may  rest.  If 
there  is  a  single  possibility  which  he  is  not  ready 
to  meet  and  overthrow,  his  whole  effort  is  fruitless. 
For  instance,  a  debater,  in  attempting  to  rebut  the 
statement  that  college  fraternities  are  harmful,  said 
that  his  opponent  must  show  that  fraternities  are 
either  morally,  socially,  financially  or  intellectually 
detrimental  to  their  members;  he  then  proved  as 
best  he  could  that  in  these  respects  fraternities  are 
beneficial  rather  than  harmful,  and  sat  down  think- 
ing that  he  had  gone  a  long  way  toward  winning 
the  debate.  His  opponent  then  arose  and  admitting 
nearly  everything  that  had  been  said,  based  his  ar- 
gument on  the  idea  that  fraternities  were  harmful 
243 


Refutation 

to  the  college  as  a  whole.  The  first  speaker  had 
not  considered  every  alternative.  If  an  arguer  is  to 
approach  a  dilemma  through  the  medium  of  a  ques- 
tion, he  must  be  sure  that  he  knows  every  reason- 
able answer  that  his  opponent  can  make.  When 
one  has  satisfied  these  conditions,  he  can  use  the 
dilemma  with  great  effect. 

By  way  of  summary  it  may  be  said  that  the  suc- 
cessful arguer  must  both  build  up  his  own  proof 
and  destroy  his  opponent's.  To  accomplish  the  lat- 
ter one  has  to  know  what  to  refute  and  what  to 
leave  alone;  he  must  distinguish  between  the  im- 
portant and  the  unessential,  and  he  must  take  care 
not  to  "  refute  himself."  Since  proof  consists  of 
evidence  and  reasoning,  the  first  step  for  him  to 
take  in  refuting  an  argument  is  to  apply  the  tests 
for  each,  and  if  possible  show  where  his  opponent 
has  erred.  In  the  next  place,  he  should  see  whether 
he  can  discover  and  point  out  any  of  the  more  im- 
portant fallacies ;  the  ones  mentioned  here  are  beg- 
ging the  question,  ambiguous  terms,  false  cause, 
composition  and  division,  and  ignoring  the  ques- 
tion. Should  the  arguer  find  any  of  these  funda- 
mental weaknesses,  it  is  ordinarily  sufficient  merely 
to  call  attention  to  them ;  for  the  sake  of  emphasis, 
however,  one  may  make  use  of  two  especially  ef- 
244 


Refutation 

fective  methods  of  refutation,  reductio  ad  absurdum 
and  the  dilemma. 

EXERCISES. 

A.  Criticize  the  following  arguments  and  point  out  the 
fallacies  they  contain: — 

1.  Four    thousand    men    have    taken    examinations    at 
Princeton  under  the  honor  system,  and  only  six  of  these 
were  found  guilty  of  "cribbing."    This  record  shows  con- 
clusively that  the  honor  system  restrains  dishonest  work 
in  examinations. 

2.  Athletics  do  not  injure  a  man's  scholarship;  one  of 
the  best  players  on  last  year's  football  team  attained  such 
a  high  grade  that  he  was  awarded  a  fellowship. 

3.  During  the  decade  from  1870  to  1880,  illiteracy  among 
the  negroes  decreased  ten  per  cent.,  but  the  race  grew 
more   criminal    by   twenty-five    per   cent. ;    from    1880   to 
1890,  illiteracy  decreased  eighteen  per  cent.,  but  criminality 
increased  thirty-three  and  one-third  per  cent.    Who  can 
now  say  that  education  does  not  injure  the  negro? 

4.  Since  the  honor  system  failed  at  Franklin  and  Mar- 
shall, it  will  fail  at  College. 

5.  Frequent    athletic    games    benefit    a    college    because 
they  tend  to  take  the  students'  attention  away  from  their 
studies. 

6.  The  fixed  curriculum  of  studies  is  effective  in  mak- 
ing a  specialist,  because  the  specialist  takes  up  only  one 
kind  of  work. 

7.  Southerners   are    justified   in   keeping   the    franchise 
from  the  negro,  because  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  to  the 
Constitution  ought  never  to  have  been  passed. 

8.  Since  the  negro's  devotion  to  the  church  is  as  great 
as  that  of  most  white  people,  he  is  of  as  high  moral  stand- 
ing as  the  average  unintelligent  white. 

9.  Ireland  is  idle  and  therefore  she  starves;  she  starves 
and  therefore  she  rebels. 

245 


Refutation 

10.  Every  one  desires  virtue,  because  every  one  desires 
happiness. 

11.  The  present  term  of  four  years  is  so  short  a  time 
that  the  President  does  not  have  opportunity  to  become 
acquainted  with  his  duties,  for  just  as  he  is  becoming  ac- 
quainted with  them  he  has  to  step  out  of  office. 

12.  This  doctrine  cannot  be  proved  from  the  Gospels, 
nor  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  nor  from  the  Epistles, 
nor  from  the  Revelation  of  St.  John;  therefore  it  cannot 
be  proved  from  the  New  Testament. 

13.  Crime  is  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  our  country; 
piracy  is  a  crime;  this  man  belongs  to  a  band  of  lawless 
men,  and  this  band  has  been  taken  in  the  very  deed  of 
piracy.    Therefore  he  has  violated  the  laws  of  our  coun- 
try. 

14.  Since  all  presuming  men  are  contemptible,  and  since 
this  man  presumes  to  believe  his  opinions  are  correct,  he 
is  not  worthy  of  our  consideration. 

15.  To  prove  to  you  that  our  standing  army  should  be 
permanently  enlarged,  I  will  show  that  every  nation  of 
any  prominence  whatsoever  keeps  a  standing  army. 

16.  The  elective  system  of  studies  is  preferable  to  the 

prescribed  system,  because 
A.  The  student  can  elect  those  studies  which  will 

do  him  the  most  good,  for 
i.  He  can  elect  what  he  pleases. 

17.  Strikes  benefit  the  working  man,  because 
A.  They  benefit  him  financially,  for 

i.  If  they  did  not,  he  would  not  strike. 

18.  When   thirteen   sit   at   table  together,   one   of  them 
always  dies  within  the  year. 

19.  To  decide  whether  or  not  strikes  are  justifiable  it  is 
necessary  to  see  if  they  have  for  the  most  part  been  suc- 
cessful in  the  past. 

20.  All  the  trees  in  the  park  make  a  thick  shade;  this 
is  one  of  them,  therefore  this  tree  makes  a  thick  shade. 

246 


Refutation 

21.  Italy  is  a  Catholic  country  and  abounds  in  beggars; 
France  is  also  a  Catholic  country,  and  therefore  abounds 
in  beggars. 

22.  Pitt    was    not    a    great    and    useful    minister;    for 
though  he  would  have  been  so  had  he  carried  out  Adam 
Smith's    doctrines   of    free   trade,   he   did   not   carry    out 
those   doctrines. 

23.  All  criminal  actions  ought  to  be  punished  by  law. 
Prosecutions  for  theft  are  criminal  actions,  and  therefore 
ought  to  be  punished  by  law. 

24.  Books    are    a    source    both    of    instruction    and    of 
amusement;  a  table  of  logarithms  is  a  book;  therefore  it 
is  a  source  both  of  instruction  and  of  amusement. 

B.  On  each  of  the  following  arguments  from  authority 
write  a  paragraph  that  will  weaken  its  effect : — 

1.  "The   Senate  for  more  than  a  century  has  demon- 
strated the  wisdom  of  the  mode  of  its  constitution."     Sen- 
ator G.  F.  Hoar. 

2.  "  Mine  disasters  are  largely  due  to  the  intoxication 
of  miners,  or  to  carelessness  caused  by  the  after  effects 
of  a  '  spree,' "  says  Dr.  Jesse  K.  Johnson,  superintendent 
of  one  of  the  largest  mines  in  the  Pittsburg  district. 

3.  Both  Mark  Hanna  and  Grover  Cleveland  have  stated 
that  a  six  year  Presidential  term  would  be  of  great  benefit 
to  the  United  States. 

4.  Senator  La  Follet,  who  has  made  a  thorough  study  of 
many  of  the  principal  monopolies  in  the  country,  states 
that  the  Standard  Oil  trust  charges  exorbitant  rates. 

£  Mr.  Francis  Walker,  in  the  Political  Science  Quar- 
terly, Volume  twenty,  page  fourteen,  says  that  legislation 
against  trusts  has  improved  conditions,  and  would  there- 
fore improve  conditions  in  the  United  States. 

6.  President  Hadley,  of  Yale  University,  has  said  that 
the  subsidizing  of  ships  on  a  large  scale  has  been  detri- 
mental to  France. 

247 


Refutation 

7.  "The  Indian  who  is  not  obliged  to  labor  for  his 
maintenance  becomes  a  lazy  vagabond."  Lyman  Abbott. 

C.  Put  the  following  article  into  the  form  of  a  brief 
and  show  exactly  what  methods  of  refutation  are  used: — 

The  old  frigate  "Constitution." 

The  pretexts  for  removal  of  "Old  Ironsides"  from 
the  waters  in  which  that  historic  ship  had  her  birth  are 
now  reduced  to  two. 

One  of  these  is  that  the  old  boat  takes  up  room  at  the 
Navy  Yard  which  is  needed  for  the  work  of  that  estab- 
lishment. 

The  other  is  that  since  the  money  expended  in  the 
restoration  of  the  frigate  —  less  than  $200,000  —  came  out 
of  the  Federal  Treasury,  the  people  of  distant  States  ought 
to  have  the  pleasure  of  seeing  what  their  money  paid  for 
without  coming  to  Boston  in  order  to  enjoy  it. 

As  for  crowding  the  Navy  Yard,  that  is  an  absurdity. 
His  Excellency  Curtis  Guild,  Jr.,  in  his  letter  to  the  Navy 
Department  protesting  against  the  removal,  quoted  the 
officers  in  command  at  the  Navy  Yard  as  declaring  that 
"the  ship  in  no  way  interferes  with  the  work  of  the  yard, 
taking  up  no  space  that  is  needed  for  other  purposes."  The 
Governor  would  not  make  such  a  statement  in  an  official 
communication  without  the  clearest  authority.  "  Indeed," 
he  adds  as  his  own  opinion,  "the  strip  of  wharf  occupied 
is  but  a  trivial  portion  of  the  long  water  front  controlled 
by  the  government." 

There  is  the  other  pretext,  namely,  that  because  the 
"  Constitution  "  has  been  repaired  at  national  cost,  there- 
fore any  special  claim  that  Massachusetts  may  have  upon 
this  relic  of  Massachusetts  patriotism  is  removed.  This 
idea  has  found  crude  and  unmannerly  expression  in  the 
words  of  one  of  the  committee  of  Congress  looking  over 
our  navy  yards.  "The  agitation  to  keep  the  ship  in  Bos- 
ton seems  selfish,"  he  is  quoted  as  saying.  "It  was  the 
248 


Refutation 

money  of  the  whole  people  of  the  United  States  that  paid 
for  its  repair,  and  the  people  in  other  sections  are  as 
justly  entitled  to  see  the  ship  as  in  Boston." 

Coming  from  a  representative  of  the  State  of  Kansas, 
this  is  almost  amusing.  His  proposition  to  tow  the  ship 
around  from  place  to  place,  as  it  may  be  wanted  for  a 
show,  suggests  the  practicability  of  a  canal,  say,  to  Topeka, 
or  to  Fort  Hayes. 

The  alternative  proposition,  namely,  that  Massachusetts 
shall  repay  to  the  general  government  the  cost  of  the  re- 
pairs of  the  "  Constitution,"  would  have  some  standing 
were  it  a  commercial  affair.  Massachusetts  has  expended 
many  times  the  cost  of  the  repairs  of  "  Old  Ironsides " 
in  preserving  for  the  nation  the  revolutionary  sites  and 
monuments  upon  our  soil.  Payment  for  the  repair  and 
restoration  of  "  Old  Ironsides "  would  be  a  bagatelle  if 
the  people  of  the  United  States  were  to  demand  that 
this  monument  also  shall  be  purchased  by  the  people  of 
Massachusetts  under  threat  of  its  removal. 

But  it  is  not  a  question  of  money;  that  is  a  con- 
temptible suggestion.  Nor  is  it  a  question  of  bureaucracy. 
It  is  a  simple,  reasonable,  entirely  practical  demand  of 
the  historic  sentiment  of  patriotism  which  still  warms  the 
hearts  and  inspires  the  souls  of  Massachusetts  men. 


249 


CHAPTER  IX 

DEBATE  — SOME    PRACTICAL    SUGGES- 
TIONS 

DEBATE  has  been  defined  as  the  oral  presenta- 
tion of  argument  under  conditions  that  allow  both 
sides  to  be  heard.  In  both  class  room  and  inter- 
collegiate debating  each  side  usually  makes  two 
speeches,  a  main  speech  and  a  rebuttal  speech. 
The  main  speech  ordinarily  extends  over  a  period 
of  from  seven  to  twelve  minutes,  according  to  the 
rules  governing  the  contest,  and  is  largely  construc- 
tive in  nature.  The  rebuttal  speech,  commonly 
called  the  rebuttal,  is  usually  a  little  less  than  half 
the  length  of  the  main  speech,  and  is  for  the  most 
part  destructive.  It  is  almost  superfluous  to  add 
that  both  sides  are  allowed  exactly  the  same  amount 
of  time  in  which  to  present  their  arguments;  that 
the  affirmative  side  speaks  first,  the  order  being, 
when  there  are  several  debaters,  affirmative,  neg- 
ative, affirmative,  negative,  and  so  on;  and  that  all 
the  main  speeches  are  given  before  either  side  makes 
250 


Debate 

a  rebuttal  speech.  If  there  be  only  one  debater  on 
each  side,  it  is  undoubtedly  best  for  the  affirmative 
to  offer  the  first  rebuttal;  if  there  be  several  de- 
baters, the  order  is  usually  reversed.  The  debaters 
on  either  side  may  or  may  not  speak  in  rebuttal  in 
the  same  order  as  in  the  main  argument. 


HOW  TO  PREPARE  FOR  DEBATE. 

In  several  ways  the  work  of  the  debater  differs 
from  the  work  of  one  who  is  preparing  a  written 
argument  or  who  is  to  speak  without  being  con- 
fronted by  an  opponent.  As  far  as  the  completion 
of  the  brief,  the  work  in  all  cases  is  the  same,  but 
at  this  point  the  debater  has  to  decide  what  special 
preparation  he  shall  make  for  handling  and  pre- 
senting to  the  audience  the  material  that  he  has 
collected.  He  is  puzzled  to  know  whether  it  will 
be  worth  while  to  expand  his  brief;  and  if  he  does 
expand  it,  he  is  in  doubt  as  to  just  what  he  should 
do  with  the  expanded  argument. 

A  debater  has  his  choice  of  several  possible 
methods  of  procedure.  The  simplest,  though  not 
the  most  effective  method,  is  to  write  out  the  argu- 
ment in  full,  and  to  memorize  it  word  for  word. 
The  weakness  of  such  a  course  lies  in  the  immo- 
251 


Debate 

bility  of  its  attack  and  defense.  The  first  speaker 
for  the  affirmative  may  decide  beforehand  exactly 
what  he  will  say  and  the  order  in  which  he  will 
say  it,  but  all  those  who  are  to  follow  should 
adapt  their  arguments,  to  some  extent  at  least, 
to  the  exigencies  of  the  debate.  They  will  find  it 
desirable  to  make  a  change  in  one  place  in  order 
to  join  their  arguments  harmoniously  to  those  of 
their  colleagues;  they  will  wish  to  make  changes 
in  another  place  for  the  sake  of  assailing  an  obvi- 
ously weak  spot  or  in  order  to  ward  off  an  unex- 
pected attack.  This  versatility  is  practically  im- 
possible if  one  is  delivering  an  argument  that  he 
has  memorized  word  for  word.  Again,  a  memor- 
ized argument  cannot  carry  with  it  the  force  and 
the  conviction  that  may  be  found  in  an  effort  of  a 
more  spontaneous  character.  Furthermore,  if  a  de- 
bater should  be  so  unfortunate  as  to  forget  even  a 
few  words  of  a  memorized  selection,  he  would 
probably  be  forced  to  sit  down  with  his  speech  only 
partially  completed. 

Another  method  that  some  debaters  follow  is  to 
memorize  portions  of  their  argument  and  to  ex- 
temporize the  rest.  This  is  open  to  two  great  ob- 
jections :  first,  it  is  difficult  to  join  together  grace- 
fully the  memorized  passages  and  the  extempo- 
252 


Debate 

rized;  and  the  second,  the  very  smoothness  with 
which  the  memorized  passages  are  delivered  be- 
trays the  crudeness  and  awkwardness  of  the  extem- 
porized parts. 

A  third  method,  and  undoubtedly  the  best  one  for 
the  student  to  adopt,  is  not  to  expand  the  brief 
before  he  debates,  but  to  memorize  the  greater  part 
of  it  as  a  brief.  In  this  way  a  debater  has  his  ideas 
well  in  hand,  and,  without  being  tied  down  to  any 
particular  manner  of  expression  or  obliged  to  follow 
any  set  order  of  procedure,  he  can  use  his  material 
as  opportunity  requires.  His  language  should  be 
at  least  partially  extemporaneous;  he  may  have  a 
fairly  clear  conception  of  how  he  is  to  frame  his 
sentences,  but  he  should  have  nothing  learned 
word  for  word.  Thus  his  speech  may  have  an 
element  of  spontaneity  that  will  give  it  a  tone  of 
sincerity  and  earnestness  unattainable  when  one  is 
repeating  a  memorized  passage.  Too  much,  how- 
ever, must  not  be  left  to  the  inspiration  of  the  mo- 
ment; no  student  should  ever  try  to  debate  with- 
out first  attempting  in  his  room  to  expand  his  brief 
orally.  He  is  sure  to  meet  with  considerable  dif- 
ficulty the  first  time  he  tries  to  formulate  his  ideas 
in  clear,  forceful,  and  elegant  language ;  but  several 
attempts  will  produce  a  remarkable  change.  After 
253 


Debate 

a  few  endeavors  he  will  discover  ways  of  expressing 
himself  that  he  will  remember,  even  though  the 
words  vary  greatly  each  time. 

The  superiority  of  this  method  is  marked.  It 
enables  the  debater  to  become  perfectly  familiar 
with  all  his  material,  and  it  gives  him  a  fairly  good 
idea  of  what  language  he  shall  use.  He  is  not, 
however,  bound  down  to  any  set  speech;  he  can 
alter  his  argument  to  suit  the  occasion.  Should 
he  unexpectedly  find  that  his  opponent  has  admit- 
ted a  certain  idea,  he  can  merely  call  attention  to 
this  fact  and  not  waste  valuable  time  in  giving 
superfluous  proof.  If  he  sees  that  his  opponent  has 
made  such  a  strong  argument  that  some  refutation 
is  necessary  at  the  outset  in  order  to  gain  the  con- 
fidence of  his  audience,  he  can  instantly  change 
the  order  of  his  proof  and  begin  with  a  point  that 
he  had,  perhaps,  intended  to  use  in  another  part  of 
his  speech.  In  fact,  this  method  enables  one  to 
debate  rather  than  to  declaim. 

In  most  debating  contests  it  is  permissible  for 
the  contestants  to  make  use  of  a  few  notes  written 
on  small  cards  that  can  be  carried  in  a  pocket  or 
held  unobtrusively  in  the  hand.  Such  a  practice, 
if  not  abused,  is  commended  by  some  teachers  of 
argumentation.  On  these  cards  the  debater  can 
254 


Debate 

put  down  the  main  headings  of  his  brief,  all  statis- 
tics that  are  difficult  to  remember,  and  all  quota- 
tions. He  had  better  not  refer  to  these  cards  for 
the  headings  of  his  brief  if  he  can  possibly  avoid 
doing  so.  It  will  be  a  great  stimulus,  however, 
for  him  to  know  that  he  has  this  help  to  rely  on  in 
case  of  necessity.  Statistics  and  quotations  he  may 
read  without  hesitation. 

One  should  speak  his  debate  many  times  by  him- 
self, not  only  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  facility 
in  expression,  but  also  for  the  sake  of  condensing 
his  material  to  an  argument  that  will  approximately 
occupy  the  exact  time  allowed  him  for  debating. 
It  is  a  deplorable  fact  that  many  debaters  try 
to  say  so  much  that  when  their  allotment  of 
time  has  expired  they  find  themselves  in  the 
very  midst  of  their  argument.  Such  an  end- 
ing leaves  the  audience  confused  and  unim- 
pressed. No  debater  should  ever  omit  his  con- 
clusion. If  there  is  only  one  contestant  on  each 
side,  a  conclusion  is  certainly  necessary  both  for  the 
sake  of  clearness  and  emphasis,  and  because  an  un- 
finished argument  is  not  a  unit.  If  there  are  sev- 
eral contestants  on  each  side,  the  fact  that  the  op- 
posing speakers  intervene  and  distract  the  atten- 
tion of  the  audience  makes  it  even  more  necessary 
255 


Debate 

that  each  debater  end  his  argument  with  a  formal 
conclusion,  and  by  means  of  it  bind  his  work  to  that 
of  his  colleagues. 


REFUTATION. 

As  much  time,  if  not  more,  should  be  spent  in 
preparing  the  destructive  as  in  preparing  the  con- 
structive portion  of  an  argument.  One  can  de- 
termine beforehand  almost  exactly  how  he  will 
establish  his  side  of  the  proposition,  but  just  what 
material  he  will  need  to  overthrow  his  opponent's 
proof  will  depend  upon  how  that  proof  is  con- 
structed. Ordinarily  one  can  predict  what  lines 
of  reasoning  an  opponent  will  take ;  in  fact,  no  one 
should  ever  attempt  to  debate  until  he  has  studied 
the  proposition  so  thoroughly  that  he  can  antici- 
pate practically  all  the  arguments  that  will  be  ad- 
vanced. Yet  until  he  sees  on  what  points  the  empha- 
sis is  placed,  what  arguments  are  ignored,  and  what 
evidence  is  used,  he  cannot  tell  for  sure  what  facts 
and  what  inferences  will  be  most  valuable  as  refu- 
tation. Therefore,  a  debater  who  wishes  to  offer 
good  refutation  must  have  a  wealth  of  material  at 
his  command  and  be  able  to  select  instantly  the 
ideas  that  will  be  of  the  greatest  value. 

256 


Debate 

This  necessity  for  an  abundance  of  information 
precludes  the  idea,  held  by  some,  that  good  de- 
baters depend  for  their  refutation  on  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  moment.  Great  speakers  often  spend 
incalculable  time  in  preparing  to  answer  the  argu- 
ments of  the  opposition.  Webster's  Reply  to 
Hayne,  which  is  a  recognized  masterpiece  of  oratory, 
and  which  is  almost  entirely  refutation,  was  at  first 
thought  to  have  been  composed  over  night,  but 
Webster  declared  that  all  the  material  he  had  used 
had  lain  in  his  desk  for  months. 

Refutation  should  come  for  the  most  part,  though 
not  entirely,  in  the  rebuttal.  Unless  one  has  made 
a  thorough  study  of  both  sides  of  the  question,  and 
is  thus  sure  of  his  ground,  anticipatory  refutation 
is  dangerous.  It  is  sometimes  an  excellent  plan 
to  take  the  wind  out  of  an  opponent's  sails  by  over- 
throwing an  argument  of  his  before  he  has  a  chance 
to  present  it,  but  in  doing  this  the  debater  must  use 
the  greatest  caution.  To  begin  with,  he  must  be 
sure  that  the  argument  he  refutes  is  of  such  a  fun- 
damental nature  that  it  is  essential  to  the  case  of 
the  other  side,  for  if  his  opponent  fails  to  use  this 
point,  the  debater  not  only  has  exposed  himself  to 
ridicule,  but  has  wasted  valuable  time.  When  one 
does  refute  in  advance  a  point  that  must  be  up- 
17  257 


Debate 

held  by  the  opposition,  a  skillful  opponent  often 
can,  by  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  even  those 
on  the  other  side  recognize  the  importance  and 
strength  of  this  argument,  destroy  much  of  the  ad- 
vantage that  has  been  gained.  To  refute  an  argu- 
ment before  it  is  advanced,  sometimes  brings  fail- 
ure and  sometimes  brings  success.  A  debater  must 
exercise  judgment. 

One  must  also  exercise  a  high  degree  of  judg- 
ment in  deciding  where  he  can  most  advantageously 
answer  the  arguments  that  have  actually  been  given. 
Whenever  a  debater  presents  so  thorough  and  so 
strong  proof  that  the  audience  is  likely  to  think 
that  he  has  settled  the  question  and  won  the  debate, 
the  succeeding  speaker  on  the  opposite  side  will 
have  great  difficulty  in  making  any  impression  un- 
less he  can  at  the  start  at  least  partially  discredit 
the  preceding  argument.  The  attitude  of  the  audi- 
ence will  compel  him  to  use  refutation  before  be- 
ginning his  constructive  work.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  the  preceding  argument  has  apparently  produced 
but  little  effect,  he  may  at  once  begin  to  build  his 
own  proof.  He  should,  however,  show  good  rea- 
son for  postponing  his  refutation.  To  ignore  the 
previous  arguments  entirely,  or  arbitrarily  to  post- 

258 


Debate 

pone  answering  them,  is  likely  to  give  the  audience 
an  unfavorable  impression. 

Common  errors  in  refutation.  A  common  error 
in  refutation  is  the  failure  to  attack  an  opponent's 
main  arguments.  Students  especially  are  wont  to 
neglect  fundamental  principles,  and  instead  of  over- 
throwing the  points  that  count,  occupy  invaluable 
time  with  trivial  matters.  To  rebut  unimportant 
details,  admitted  matter,  mere  illustrations,  and  er- 
rors obviously  due  to  haste  in  speaking,  is  a  fault 
that  every  debater  should  carefully  avoid.  Such 
trivialities  the  audience  immediately  forgets,  and 
to  bring  them  up  again  and  refute  them  serves  no 
worthy  purpose  whatever. 

Another  serious  fault  common  to  refutation  in 
student  debates  is  lack  of  coherence.  The  student 
falls  into  this  error  when  he  rebuts  a  miscellaneous 
lot  of  points  without  having  first  ascertained  the 
function  of  each  and  differentiated  the  main  ideas 
from  the  subordinate  ones.  Instead  of  looking  at 
the  argument  as  a  whole  and  attacking  it  with  the 
concerted  strength  of  all  his  forces,  he  fires  scatter- 
ing shots,  and  does  but  little  damage.  In  refuta- 
tion a  debater  must  first  see  clearly  the  relation 
between  each  point  that  he  rebuts  and  the  proposi- 
259 


Debate 

tion,  otherwise  his  work  is  wasted.  Secondly,  he 
must  make  this  relation  perfectly  plain  to  the  audi- 
ence. Instead  of  overthrowing  isolated  statements, 
a  debater  should  take  up  his  opponent's  case  as 
a  whole  and  weaken  it  as  much  as  he  can.  He 
should  attack  each  main  point.  Coherent  refuta- 
tion adds  much  to  the  effectiveness  of  a  debate. 

Availability  of  material  for  refutation.  In  of- 
fering refutation,  every  inexperienced  debater  has 
difficulty  in  laying  his  hands  on  just  the  material 
that  he  desires  to  use.  Possibly  he  remembers  that 
he  has  seen  somewhere  an  article  that  proves  the  in- 
sincerity of  a  man  who  has  just  been  quoted  as 
an  authority;  but  if  he  can  neither  produce  this 
article  nor  state  its  substance,  he  might  as  well  not 
know  about  it.  Perhaps  he  remembers  having  seen 
a  table  of  statistics  showing  that  his  opponent  has 
erred  in  regard  to  the  death  rate  in  the  Spanish- 
American  War ;  but  unless  he  can  produce  the  table, 
his  knowledge  is  of  no  avail.  There  is  scarcely  any 
time  for  searching  through  books  or  unorganized 
notes ;  material  to  be  of  use  must  be  instantly  avail- 
able. Some  definite  system  of  arranging  rebuttal 
material  is  absolutely  indispensable. 

One  method  that  has  been  tried  with  great  suc- 
cess consists  of  putting  down  on  cards  of  a  uniform 
260 


Debate 

size  all  the  material  that  can  possibly  be  of  use  in 
refutation.  These  cards  the  debater  then  groups, 
in  alphabetical  order,  under  headings  that  cor- 
respond to  the  main  divisions  of  the  subject  under 
discussion,  and  if  it  seems  advisable  in  any  particu- 
lar instance,  he  may  group  them  under  subdivisions 
of  the  proposition.  To  be  more  explicit,  if  a  de- 
bater thinks  that  the  opposition  may  question  the 
financial  success  of  a  plan  that  he  is  advocating, 
he  should  write  out  on  as  many  cards  as  are  neces- 
sary, usually  putting  only  one  idea  on  each  card,  all 
the  material  that  goes  to  show  why  the  plan  should 
succeed  and  where  it  has  succeeded.  Furthermore, 
if  the  plan  has  failed  anywhere,  he  should  put  down, 
providing  he  is  able,  explanations  that  will  ac- 
count for  the  failure  without  condemning  the  sys- 
tem. These  cards,  then,  would  naturally  be  ar- 
ranged under  some  such  heading  as  "  Finance  "  or 
"  Success."  If  the  debater  wishes,  he  may  also 
arrange  his  cards  under  subheadings.  For  instance, 
those  cards  that  go  to  show  why  the  plan  ought  to 
succeed  could  be  put  under  the  subheading,  "  Ante- 
cedent Probability  " ;  those  that  show  where  the  plan 
has  succeeded,  under  "  Sign/'  and  those  that  ac- 
count for  failure  of  the  plan  in  certain  places,  un- 
der the  heading  "  Failures."  Any  one  at  all  famil- 
261 


Debate 

iar  with  a  library  card  catalogue  will  at  once  see 
the  various  possibilities  for  arranging  these  cards. 

Cards  for  rebuttal  should  be  made  out  about  as 
follows : — 

Proposition: — Resolved,  That  profit-sharing  and 
co-operative  methods  generally  afford  the  most 
promising  solution  of  the  labor  problem.  (Affirm- 
ative.) 


PRACTICABILITY 


Practicability 

The  Union  Polishing  Metal  Plating  Com- 
pany has  been  successfully  operated  under 
this  method  since  1902.  (C.  H.  Quinn,  Out- 
look, Vol.  LXXIII,  page  452.) 


262 


Debate 


Practicability 

The  great  iron  works  of  Evansville,  Wis., 
are  operated  under  this  method.  (G.  L. 
McNutt,  Ind.,  Vol.  LV,  page  619.) 


The  advantages  of  such  a  system  are  obvious. 
This  method  gives  not  only  one  debater,  but  the 
whole  team,  almost  instant  command  of  all  the  ma- 
terial that  has  been  collected.  One  can  find  what 
he  wants,  and  find  it  hastily;  he  is  not  obliged  to 
spend  much  valuable  time  in  hunting  after  needed 
evidence  and  thus  neglect  large  portions  of  the 
speech  that  is  being  delivered.  A  debater  should 
begin  on  the  classification  of  rebuttal  material  al- 
most as  soon  as  he  begins  to  read  on  his  subject. 
In  this  way  he  will  save  all  the  material  that  he 
gathers,  and  his  catalogued  information  will  be  of 
assistance  to  him  in  drawing  his  brief  and  in  con- 
structing his  main  argument  as  well  as  in  making 
refutation  at  the  time  of  the  debate. 

WHAT  EACH  DEBATER  MUST  DO. 

The  first   speaker  for  the   affirmative.     Upon 
the  first  speaker  for  the  affirmative  falls  the  duty 

263 


Debate 

of  interpreting  the  proposition.  Since  the  subject 
of  analysis  has  already  been  fully  discussed,  but 
few  directions  need  be  given  here.  It  may  be  well, 
however,  to  emphasize  the  qualities  of  clearness 
and  fairness.  A  debate,  unlike  a  written  argument, 
cannot  be  studied  and  re-read  time  and  again.  For 
this  reason,  unless  the  proposition  is  explained  in 
the  very  simplest  language  and  by  means  of  the 
very  clearest  definitions  and  illustrations,  many  peo- 
ple in  the  audience  will  not  understand  what  the 
debate  is  about.  Long  words  and  high-sounding 
phrases  have  no  place  here.  The  debater  must  aim 
to  reach  not  merely  those  who  are  familiar  with 
the  subject,  but  also  those  to  whom  the  question 
is  absolutely  new.  If,  when  the  first  speaker  has 
finished,  any  attentive  listener  of  average  intelli- 
gence fails  to  understand  both  the  subject  of  the 
debate  and  the  attitude  of  the  affirmative  side,  the 
speech  has  been  a  failure. 

Then,  too,  the  analysis  of  the  proposition  must 
be  fair  and  just  to  both  sides.  A  debater  has  no 
right  to  strain  or  twist  the  meaning  of  the  proposi- 
tion so  as  to  gain  any  advantage  for  himself.  In 
the  first  place,  this  practice  is  dishonest,  and  an 
honorable  debater  does  not  wish  to  win  by  trickery 
or  fraud.  Secondly,  such  an  act  almost  always 
264 


Debate 

brings  defeat.  The  fact  that  a  debate  is  being  held, 
presupposes  a  subject  about  which  reasonable  men 
may  differ.  If  a  debater  interprets  the  proposition 
so  that  only  one  reasonable  side  exists,  manifestly 
he  must  be  in  error,  and  upon  the  exposure  of  this 
error  he  is  sure  to  lose  the  decision. 

In  debate,  therefore,  clearness  and  fairness 
should  especially  characterize  the  four  steps  that  are 
taken  in  analyzing  the  proposition :  to  define  terms, 
to  explain  the  proposition  as  a  whole,  to  discover 
the  issues,  and  to  make  the  partition. 

Upon  the  completion  of  the  introduction,  the  first 
debater  for  the  affirmative  proceeds  to  the  discus- 
sion, and  later,  should  he  be  the  only  con- 
testant on  the  affirmative  side,  to  the  conclu- 
sion. But  if,  as  is  usually  the  case,  there  be  several 
debaters  on  each  side,  he  takes  up  only  one  or  two 
main  points  of  the  proof.  In  handling  this  proof  he 
must  be  sure  so  to  correlate  his  work  with  the  work 
of  his  colleagues  that,  in  the  minds  of  the  audience, 
it  will  all  hang  together  as  a  united  whole.  To  ac- 
complish this  object,  he  may,  as  he  finishes  with  his 
partition,  state  what  points  he  will  discuss  him- 
self, and  what  points  will  be  handled  by  the  affirm- 
ative speakers  that  are  to  succeed  him ;  and  he  must, 
without  fail,  when  he  nears  the  end  of  his  allotted 
265 


Debate 

time,  hastily  summarize  the  proof  that  he  has  given, 
and  outline  the  proof  that  is  to  follow.  In  this  way 
he  may  keep  the  intervening  speeches  of  his  op- 
ponents from  entirely  destroying  the  continuity  that 
should  exist  between  his  speech  and  the  speeches 
of  his  colleagues. 

The  first  speaker  for  the  negative.  It  rests 
with  the  first  speaker  for  the  negative  to  determine 
whether  the  introduction  as  presented  by  the  affirm- 
ative is  satisfactory,  whether  the  analysis  of  the 
proposition  is  clear,  adequate,  and  fair.  If  the 
affirmative  has  erred  in  any  respect,  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  first  negative  debater  to  supply  the  defi- 
ciency or  make  the  correction;  otherwise  he  errs 
equally  with  the  affirmative.  If  the  affirmative 
has  failed  to  explain  the  proposition  so  that  it 
is  generally  understood,  the  negative  is  sure  to 
win  favor  with  the  audience  by  spending  a  few 
moments  in  elucidating  the  subject  of  controversy. 
If  the  affirmative  debater  has  analyzed  the  question 
inadequately  or  unfairly,  the  negative  debater  should 
not  begin  to  establish  proof  until  he  has  set  these 
preliminaries  straight.  In  correcting  an  unfair 
analysis,  it  is  never  enough  that  one  merely  make 
objections  or  even  give  an  introduction  of  his  own; 
he  must,  in  brief  form  —  and  often  a  single  sen- 
266 


Debate 

tence  is  sufficient  —  show  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
audience  that  his  opponent  has  not  interpreted  the 
proposition  correctly.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the 
first  speaker  for  the  negative  considers  the  intro- 
duction given  by  the  affirmative  perfectly  fair  and 
satisfactory,  he  can  pass  by  it  without  comment, 
and  begin  his  own  argument  either  with  refutation 
or  with  a  statement  of  the  points  that  the  negative 
side  will  establish  in  attacking  the  proposition. 

It  is  thus  apparent  that  a  debater  who  opens  a 
negative  argument  must  depend  for  the  beginning 
of  his  speech  rather  on  a  thorough  understanding 
of  the  subject  in  all  its  details  and  fundamental 
principles  than  on  a  speech  that  he  has  to  de- 
liver word  for  word.  To  repeat  an  introduction  that 
has  already  been  given  is  absurd;  to  fail  to  correct 
an  introduction  that,  as  a  whole,  is  obscure  or  is  un- 
fair, is  to  merit  defeat.  It  may  be  added,  by 
way  of  caution,  that  when  a  debater  supplies 
any  deficiencies  in  the  speech  of  his  predecessor,  he 
should  do  this  without  any  appearance  of  "  smart- 
ness "  or  personal  antagonism.  Even  if  the  affirm- 
ative debater  has  been  manifestly  unfair,  the  nega- 
tive speaker  will  do  well  to  correct  this  unfairness 
in  a  friendly,  though  in  a  forceful  manner. 

As  soon  as  the  introduction  is  out  of  the  way, 
267 


Debate 

the  negative  speaker  proceeds  to  the  discussion. 
Two  courses  are  open  to  him:  he  may  at  once  re- 
fute his  predecessor's  arguments,  or  he  may  proceed 
to  take  up  his  constructive  proof,  giving  reason  for 
postponing  the  refutation.  As  this  matter  has  al- 
ready been  discussed,  it  is  only  necessary  to  say 
that  the  course  he  should  choose  depends  largely 
upon  the  strength  of  the  preceding  argument.  The 
same  directions  that  have  been  given  to  the  affirma- 
tive debater  for  connecting  his  work  to  his  col- 
leagues' apply  equally  to  the  negative.  Summaries 
and  outlines  aid  greatly  in  binding  the  arguments  of 
a  debating  team  into  one  compact  mass. 

The  other  speakers.  About  the  only  practical 
suggestion  which  can  be  made  to  the  other  speak- 
ers is  that  they  adapt  their  constructive  work  to  that 
of  their  colleagues,  and  deploy  their  refutation  so 
as  to  hammer  the  principal  positions  of  their  op- 
ponents. Each  debater  may  or  may  not  begin  his 
speech  with  refutation,  but  he  should  always  begin 
his  main  argument  with  a  terse,  clear  summary  of 
what  has  been  said  on  his  side,  and  in  closing  he 
should  not  only  summarize  his  own  arguments,  but 
he  should  also  give  again,  in  very  brief  form,  the 
gist  of  what  has  been  proved  by  his  colleagues.  In 
addition,  any  speaker  except  the  last  one  on  each 
268 


Debate 

side,  may,  if  he  thinks  best,  give  an  outline  of  the 
argument  to  follow.  In  making  these  summaries, 
a  debater  must  always  avoid  stating  them  in  so 
bald  and  crude  a  form  as  to  make  them  monotonous 
and  offensive.  He  ought  rather  to  use  all  the  in- 
genuity at  his  command  in  an  attempt  to  make  this 
repetition  exceedingly  forceful. 

It  often  happens  that  an  inexperienced  debater 
never  reaches  his  conclusion.  While  he  is  still  in 
the  midst  of  his  proof,  his  allotment  of  time  expires, 
and  he  is  forced  to  sit  down,  leaving  his  speech 
hanging  in  the  air.  Such  an  experience  is  both  awk- 
ward and  disastrous ;  a  skillful  debater  never  allows 
it  to  happen.  The  peroration  is  the  most  important 
part  of  an  argument,  and  on  it  the  debater  should 
lavish  his  greatest  care.  To  omit  it  is  almost  the 
same  as  to  have  made  no  speech  at  all.  As  soon 
as  the  debater  perceives  that  he  has  but  a  short 
time  left,  he  should  at  once  bring  this  main  speech 
to  a  close,  and  even  though  he  may  have  to  omit 
important  ideas,  begin  at  once  on  his  conclusion. 
As  is  pointed  out  in  Chapter  X,  the  conclusion  con- 
sists both  of  a  summary  and  an  emotional  appeal. 
What  emotion  shall  be  aroused  and  how  it  shall 
apply  to  the  summarized  headings  can  largely  be 
determined  beforehand.  Some  debaters  go  so  far 
269 


Debate 

as  to  commit  this  conclusion  to  memory.  This  prac- 
tice is  not  recommended  except  in  special  cases, 
and  yet  a  debater  should  be  so  familiar  with  his 
peroration  that  he  will  have  no  difficulty  in  putting 
it  into  vigorous  and  pleasing  language. 

Rebuttal  speeches.  A  rebuttal  speech  usually 
furnishes  an  excellent  test  of  a  debater's  mastery  of 
his  subject.  It  shows  whether  or  not  he  compre- 
hends the  fundamental  principles  that  underly  the 
argument.  If  he  does  not  understand  fundamen- 
tals, he  cannot  distinguish  between  what  is  worth 
answering  and  what  is  trivial.  If  he  is  not  per- 
fectly familiar  with  the  arguments  on  both  sides  of 
the  question,  his  refutation  will  be  scattering;  that 
is,  he  will  rebut  only  a  few  of  his  opponent's  head- 
ings, those  for  which,  in  his  scanty  preparation, 
he  has  discovered  some  answer.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  he  really  understands  the  subject,  he  will 
deal  largely  with  main  ideas;  and  if  his  knowledge 
of  the  subject  is  as  extensive  as  it  should  be,  he  will 
almost  invariably  be  able  to  offer  some  opposition 
to  every  main  heading  used  by  the  opposition. 

When  a  debate  is  held  between  only  two  contest- 
ants, each  one  has  to  refute  the  whole  argument  of 
his  opponent.  In  this  case  there  are  no  complica- 
tions; but  when  two  teams  are  debating,  the  mem- 
270 


Debate 

bers  of  each  must  decide  among  themselves  as  to 
how  the  rebuttal  shall  be  handled.  One  way  is  for 
each  member  to  refute  all  he  can,  working  inde- 
pendently of  his  colleagues.  Much  better  results 
are  secured,  however,  when  a  team  works  systemati- 
cally. In  the  first  place,  a  team  should  always  re- 
solve the  opposing  arguments  into  a  hasty  brief. 
The  main  points  of  the  opposition  can  then  be  as- 
signed for  rebuttal  to  the  various  members  of  the 
team,  and  each  debater  can  give  thorough  treatment 
to  his  assignment.  In  this  way  every  point  is 
sure  to  be  covered,  and  there  will  be  little,  if  any, 
duplication  of  work. 

Such  a  course  presupposes  very  careful  prepa- 
ration on  the  part  of  the  debaters.  It  means  that 
each  member  of  the  team  must  have  sufficient 
knowledge  and  material  at  his  command  to  oppose 
with  credit  any  argument  that  may  be  advanced. 
In  general,  the  assignment  of  headings  for  rebuttal 
may  be  such  that  each  debater  will  refute  those 
points  of  which  he  took  an  opposite  view  in  his  main 
speech,  but  as  it  is  usually  desirable  to  rebut  argu- 
ments in  the  same  order  in  which  they  were  orig- 
inally given,  no  member  of  the  team  can  afford  to 
shirk  mastering  each  detail  that  in  any  way  has  a 
vital  bearing  upon  the  proposition. 
271 


Debate  t 

The  last  rebuttal  speaker.  The  work  of  the  ! 
last  speaker  on  each  side  differs  somewhat  from 
the  work  of  his  colleagues.  All  the  speakers  try 
to  overthrow  the  opposing  arguments,  and  by  means 
of  summaries  keep  their  case  as  a  whole  before  the 
audience.  The  last  speaker  devotes  far  less  time  to 
pure  refutation,  gives  a  more  detailed  summary,  and, 
in  addition,  compares  and  contrasts  the  arguments 
of  his  side  with  the  arguments  of  the  opposition. 
This  last  process  is  called  "  amplifying  and  dimin- 
ishing." 

It  is  not  always  necessary  to  prove  a  main  head- 
ing false  in  order  to  destroy  its  effectiveness.  A 
debater  may  of  necessity  have  to  admit  that  the  op- 
position has  successfully  established  the  points  it 
set  out  to  prove.  In  such  a  case,  he  cannot  do  bet- 
ter than  to  acknowledge  the  correctness  of  his  op- 
ponent's proof,  and  then  remembering  that  an  au- 
dience awards  a  decision  by  a  comparison  of  the 
relative  weight  of  the  proof  of  each  side,  amplify 
the  importance  of  his  own  arguments,  point  by 
point,  and  diminish  the  importance  of  the  argu- 
ments advanced  by  the  other  side. 

For  instance,  in  a  debate  on  the  question  as  to 
whether    immigration    should    be    restricted,    the 
affirmative  might  maintain  that  unrestricted  immi- 
272 


Debate 

gration  brings  serious  political  evils,  and  the  neg- 
ative might  show  that  the  policy  of  nonrestriction 
greatly  increases  the  wealth  of  the  country.  If 
neither  of  these  contentions  be  successfully  refuted, 
the  favor  of  the  audience  will  incline  towards  the 
affirmative  or  the  negative,  as  far  as  those  two 
points  are  concerned,  according  as  they  think  that 
political  purity  or  economic  prosperity  is  the  more 
important.  Plainly,  it  would  be  for  the  interest  of 
the  affirmative  to  convince  the  audience  that  the 
preservation  of  political  integrity  is  of  greater  mo- 
ment than  any  mere  material  gain. 

In  many  respects  the  last  rebuttal  speeches  on 
each  side  are  the  most  conspicuous  and  decisive 
parts  of  a  debate.  If  the  last  speech  is  hesitating 
and  weak,  it  is  liable  to  ruin  all  preceding  efforts, 
even  though  they  were  of  the  highest  order ;  if  it  is 
enthusiastic  and  strong,  it  will  often  cover  up  pre- 
ceding defects,  and  turn  defeat  into  victory.  Be- 
cause of  its  importance  this  portion  of  the  work 
usually  falls  to  the  best  debater  on  the  team,  and 
if  he  is  wise  he  will  give  it  his  greatest  thought  and 
care.  In  this  speech  he  should  strive  in  every  pos- 
sible way  to  attain  perfection.  His  delivery  should 
be  emphatic  and  pleasing;  his  ideas  should  be  logi- 
cally arranged;  and  his  knowledge  of  what  he  has 
18  273 


Debate 

to  say  should  be  so  complete  that  there  will  be  no 
hesitation,  no  groping  for  words.  Furthermore,  he 
should  introduce  an  element  of  persuasion ;  to  reach 
both  the  minds  and  the  hearts  of  his  hearers  is  es- 
sential for  the  greatest  success.  All  this  has  to  be 
done  in  a  short  time,  yet  to  be  of  a  high  rank 
even  the  shortest  closing  speeches  must  contain 
these  characteristics. 


SPECIAL  FEATURES  OF  DEBATE. 

An  argument,  like  other  kinds  of  composition, 
should  possess  the  qualities  of  style  known  as  Clear- 
ness, Force,  and  Elegance,  and  should  in  all  respects 
observe  the  principles  of  Unity,  Selection,  Coher- 
ence, Proportion,  Emphasis,  and  Variety.  Since 
the  student  from  his  study  of  Rhetoric  is  already 
familiar  with  these  matters,  it  would  be  superfluous 
to  dwell  upon  them  in  this  book.  A  good  written 
argument,  however,  does  not  always  make  a  good 
debate;  limited  time  for  speaking,  lack  of  oppor- 
tunity for  the  audience  to  grasp  ideas  and  to  re- 
flect upon  them,  the  presence  of  strong  opposing  ar- 
guments that  must  be  met  and  overthrown  with  still 
stronger  arguments, —  these  conditions  render  the 
274 


Debate 

Heightening  of  certain  characteristics  indispensable 
in  a  debate. 

(Above  all  else  the  successful  debater  is  forceful. 
He  uses  every  possible  device  for  driving  home  his 
arguments.  He  bends  every  effort  toward  making 
his  ideas  so  plain  and  so  emphatic  that  the  audi- 
ence will  understand  them  and  remember  them. 
Realizing  that  the  audience  cannot,  like  the  reader 
of  a  written  article,  peruse  the  argument  a  second 
time,  he  uses  words  and  expressions  that  cause  his 
thoughts  to  stick  fast  wherever  they  fall. 

Statistics.  Statistics  improperly  used  are  dry 
and  uninteresting;  they  often  spoil  an  otherwise 
forceful  and  persuasive  debate.  The  trouble  often 
lies,  strange  to  say,  in  the  accuracy  with  which 
the  figures  are  given.  A  brain  that  is  already  do- 
ing its  utmost  to  accept  almost  instantaneously  a 
multitude  of  facts  and  comprehend  their  signifi- 
cance, or  a  brain  that  is  somewhat  sluggish  and 
lazy,  refuses  to  be  burdened  with  uninteresting 
and  unimportant  details.  For  this  reason,  when  a 
debater  speaks  of  10,564,792  people,  the  brain  be- 
comes wearied  with  the  numbers  and  in  disgust  is 
apt  to  turn  away  from  the  whole  matter.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  round  sum  10,000,000  not  only 
275 


Debate 

does  not  burden  the  brain,  but  also,  under  ordinary 
conditions,  gives  in  a  rather  forceful  manner  the  in- 
formation it  was  intended  to  convey.  "  About  five 
hundred  "  presents  a  much  more  vivid  picture  than 
"  four  hundred  and  eighty-six  "  or  "  five  hundred 
and  eighteen  " ;  "  fifteen  per  cent."  is  stronger  than 
"  fifteen  and  one-tenth  per  cent." ;  the  expression 
"  eighty  years  "  seems  to  indicate  a  longer  period  of 
time  than  "  eighty-two  years,  seven  months,  and 
twenty-nine  days." 

If  one  is  to  quote  statistics,  he  should  always,  un- 
less the  circumstances  be  very  unusual,  use  round 
numbers.  Figures  themselves,  however,  are  often 
less  emphatic  than  other  methods  of  expression. 
The  ordinary  mind  can  not  grasp  the  significance 
of  large  numbers.  That  the  state  of  Texas  contains 
over  a  quarter  of  a  million  of  square  miles  means 
little  to  the  average  person;  he  neither  remembers 
the  exact  area  of  other  states  nor  can  he  realize  what 
an  immense  territory  these  figures  stand  for.  The 
following  quotation  gives  the  area  of  Texas  in 
much  more  vivid  and  forceful  language : — 

If  you  take  Texas  by  the  upper  corner  and  swing  it 
on  that  as  a  pivot,  you  will  lop  off  the  lower  end  of 
California,  cut  through  Idaho,  overlap  South  Dakota, 
touch  Michigan,  bisect  Ohio,  reach  West  Virginia,  cut 
through  North  Carolina  and  South  Carolina,  lop  off  all 
276 


Debate 

the  western  side  of  Florida,  and  blanket  the  greater  part 
of  the  Gulf  of  Mexico. 

To  say  that  the  American  farmer  produced  in 
1907  a  crop  worth,  at  the  farm,  seven  and  one- 
half  billions  of  dollars,  conveys  little  idea  of  the 
magnitude  of  the  harvest.  A  current  magazine  has 
couched  the  same  estimate  in  less  exact  but  in  far 
more  emphatic  language : — 

Suppose  that  all  of  last  year's  corn  had  been  shipped 
to  Europe ;  it  would  have  required  over  four  thousand 
express  steamers  of  18,000  tons  register  to  deliver  it. 
Suppose  that  the  }rear's  wheat  had  all  been  sent  to  save 
the  Far  East  from  a  great  famine:  the  largest  fleet  in 
the  world,  with  its  four  hundred  vessels  of  all  sizes,  would 
have  required  fifteen  round  trips  to  move  it.  Take  to- 
bacco,—  such  a  minor  crop  that  most  people  never  think 
of  it  in  connection  with  farming: — if  last  year's  tobacco 
crop  had  been  made  into  cigars,  the  supply  would  have 
lasted  153,000  men  for  fifty  years,  each  man  smoking  ten 
cigars  a  day. 

The  officials  of  the  forestry  service,  in  speaking 
of  the  great  devastation  caused  by  forest  fires,  make 
the  startling  assertion  that  a  new  navy  of  first-class 
battle-ships  could  be  built  for  the  sum  lost  during  a 
few  weeks  in  the  fires  that  raged  from  the  pines  of 
Maine  to  the  redwoods  of  California. 

Figures  used  in  this  way  are  most  effective, 
and  yet  probably  nothing  in  argumentation  is  more 
tedious  than  too  many  of  these  descriptions  of  statis- 
277 


Debate 

tics  coming  close  together.  If  numbers  absolutely 
have  to  be  indicated  a  great  many  times,  even  figures 
are  likely  to  be  less  tiresome. 

Concreteness.  General  statements  and  abstract 
principles  invariably  weary  an  audience.  Theories 
and  generalities  are  usually  too  intangible  to  make 
much  impression.  Specific  instances  and  concrete 
cases,  however,  are  usually  interesting.  A  vivid 
picture  of  real  persons,  things,  and  events  is  neces- 
sary to  arouse  the  attention  of  an  audience  and  cause 
them  both  to  understand  the  argument  and  to  give 
it  their  consideration.  The  slogan  of  a  recent  po- 
litical campaign  was  not,  "  Improved  economic  con- 
ditions for  the  laboring  man  " ;  it  was,  "  The  full 
dinner  pail."  The  political  orator  who  is  urging 
the  necessity  for  a  larger  navy  on  the  ground  that 
war  is  imminent  does  not  speak  of  possible  antag- 
onists in  such  general  terms  as  foreign  powers;  he 
specifies  Germany,  Japan,  and  the  other  nations  that 
he  fears.  The  preacher  who  would  really  awaken 
the  conscience  of  his  church  does  not  confine  him- 
self to  such  terms  as  original  sin  and  weaknesses  of 
the  flesh;  he  talks  of  lying,  stealing,  and  swearing. 

Compare  the  effectiveness  of  the  following  ex- 
amples : — 


278 


Debate 


People  of  the  same 
race  are  more  loyal  to 
each  other  than  to  for- 
eigners. 

Western   farmers   are 


Blood  is  thicker  than 
water. 


No,  I  am  not  going 


demanding  political  rec-     to  vote  a  straight  ticket 


ognition. 


Business    streets   that 


this  year.  If  I  do,  my 
candidate  must  be  in 
favor  of  some  things  I 
want."  That  was  the 
dictum  of  Franklin  Tay- 
lor, Farmer,  on  Rural 
Route  No.  12,  ten  miles 
from  a  western  town. 
He  is  a  type  of  thou- 
sands of  other  farmers 
in  the  West. 

Business   streets   that 


were  once  commodious  ten  years  after  the  great 
and  impressive  are  now  fire  promised  to  be  al- 
most grand  in  their 


smoky  and  filthy. 


grand  in 
width  and  perspective 
are  now  mere  smoky 
tunnels  under  the  filth- 
dripping  gridirons  of  the 
elevated  railways. 


279 


Debate 

The  West  is  becom-  The  center  of  popula- 
ing  more  densely  popu-  tion,  now  in  Indiana,  is 
lated.  traveling  straight  to- 

ward the  middle  point 
of  Illinois.  The  center 
of  manufacturing  has 
reached  only  eastern 
Ohio,  but  is  marching  in 
a  bee-line  for  Chicago. 

In  the  following  quotation  Mr.  Crisp,  laying  aside 
for  the  moment  abstractions  and  generalities,  and 
bringing  his  case  down  to  a  specific  instance,  gives  a 
concrete  illustration  of  how  the  protective  tariff  af- 
fects a  single  individual : 

Will  you  tell  how  this  protective  tariff  benefits  our 
agricultural  producers?  I  can  show  you  —  I  think  I  can 
demonstrate  clearly  —  how  the  tariff  hurts  them;  and  I 
defy  any  of  you  to  show  wherein  they  are  benefited  by 
a  protective  tariff. 

Suppose  a  farmer  in  Minnesota  has  5,000  bushels  of 
wheat  and  a  farmer  in  Georgia  has  100  bales  of  cotton. 
That  wheat  at  eighty  cents  a  bushel  is  worth  $4,000,  and 
that  cotton  at  eight  cents  a  pound  is  worth  $4,000.  Let 
those  producers  ship  their  staples  abroad.  The  Minnesota 
wheat-grower  ships  his  wheat  to  Liverpool;  whether  he 
ships  it  there  or  not,  that  is  where  the  price  of  his  wheat 
is  fixed.  The  Georgia  cotton-raiser  ships  his  cotton  to 
Liverpool;  whether  he  ships  it  there  or  not,  that  is  where 
the  price  of  his  cotton  is  fixed.  The  wheat  and  the  cotton 
arc  sold  in  that  free  trade  market.  The  wheat  is  sold 
280 


Debate 

for  $4,000;  the  cotton  brings  the  same  amount.  The  Min- 
nesota farmer  invests  the  $4,000  he  has  received  for  his 
wheat  in  clothing,  crockery,  iron,  steel,  dress  goods, 
clothing, —  whatever  he  may  need  for  his  family  in  Min- 
nesota. The  Georgia  cotton-raiser  invests  the  proceeds  of 
his  cotton  in  like  kind  of  goods. 

Each  of  those  men  ships  his  goods  to  this  country  and 
they  reach  the  port  of  New  York.  When  either  under- 
takes to  unload  them  he  is  met  by  the  collector  of  cus- 
toms, who  says,  "Let  me  see  your  invoice."  The  invoice 
is  exhibited,  and  it  shows  $4,000  worth  of  goods.  Those 
goods  represent  in  the  one  case  5,000  bushels  of  wheat,  in 
the  other  case  100  bales  of  cotton.  The  collector  at  the 
port  says  to  either  of  these  gentlemen  —  the  man  who 
raises  the  wheat  in  Minnesota  or  him  who  raises  the 
cotton  in  Georgia,  "  You  cannot  bring  into  this  market 
those  goods  for  which  you  have  exchanged  your  products 
unless  you  pay  to  the  United  States  a  tariff  by  the  Mc- 
Kinley  law  —  a  tax  of  $2,000." 

Figures  of  speech.  The  use  of  figurative  lan- 
guage is  also  an  aid  to  clearness  and  to  force. 
Simile,  metaphor,  personification,  antithesis,  balance, 
climax,  rhetorical  question,  and  repetition  are  all 
effective  aids  in  the  presentation  of  argument.  The 
speeches  of  great  orators  are  replete  with  expres- 
sions of  this  sort.  Burke,  in  his  Speech  on  Concili- 
ation, says,  "  Despotism  itself  is  obliged  to  truck  and 
huckster  " ;  "  The  public,"  he  said,  "  would  not  have 
patience  to  see  us  play  the  game  out  with  our  ad- 
versaries ;  we  must  produce  our  hand  " ;  "  Men  may 
lose  little  in  property  by  the  act  which  takes  away 
281 


Debate 

all  tfieir  freedom.  When  a  man  is  robbed  of  a 
trifle  on  the  highway,  it  is  not  the  twopence  lost 
that  constitutes  the  capital  outrage."  In  speaking 
of  certain  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  Webster 
says  that  they  are  the  "  keystone  of  the  arch."  The 
following  paragraph  is  taken  from  his  Reply  to 
Hayne: — 

And,  sir,  where  American  liberty  raised  its  first  voice, 
and  where  its  youth  was  nurtured  and  sustained,  there  it 
still  lives  in  the  strength  of  its  manhood  and  full  of  its 
original  spirit.  If  discord  and  disunion  shall  wound  it; 
if  party  strife  and  blind  ambition  shall  hawk  at  and  tear 
it;  if  folly  and  madness,  if  uneasiness  under  salutary 
and  necessary  restraint,  shall  succeed  to  separate  it  from 
that  Union  by  which  alone  its  existence  is  made  sure; 
it  will  stand,  in  the  end,  by  the  side  of  that  cradle  in 
which  its  infancy  was  rocked;  it  will  stretch  forth  its 
arm  with  whatever  of  vigor  it  may  still  retain,  over  the 
friends  who  gather  round  it;  and  it  will  fall  at  last,  if 
fall  it  must,  amidst  the  proudest  monuments  of  its  own 
glory,  and  on  the  very  spot  of  its  origin. 

The  Outlook,  in  a  recent  issue,  first  states  a  vital 
question  in  literal  and  then,  to  drive  home  the  mean- 
ing of  the  problem,  in  figurative  language : — 

Is  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  a  series  of  in- 
flexible rules  which  can  be  changed  only  by  the  methods 
which  those  rules  themselves  prescribe,  or  is  it  the  ex- 
pression of  certain  political  principles  by  which  a  living 
and  growing  Nation  has  resolved  to  guide  itself  in  its 
life  and  growth?  Is  it  an  anchor  which  fastens  the 

282 


Debate 

ship  of  state  in  one  place,  or  a  rudder  to  guide  it  on 
its  voyage? 

Sometimes  figures  of  speech  are  used  to  such  ex- 
cess or  in  such  incongruous  combinations  that  they 
detract  from  the  effectiveness  of  the  debate  in  which 
they  occur  rather  than  add  to  it.  The  distance  from 
a  forceful  figure  to  an  absurd  figure  is  so  short 
that  a  debater  has  to  be  on  his  guard  against  using 
expressions  that  will  impress  his  audience  as  ridicu- 
lous or  even  funny.  A  mixture  of  highly  figurative 
language  with  literal  language  and  commonplace 
ideas,  and  a  mixture  of  several  figures  are  especially 
to  be  guarded  against.  As  an  example  of  the  extent 
to  which  figures  may  be  mixed  the  following  will 
serve : — 

"  I'm  up  a  tree,"  admitted  the  bolting  Senator,  "  but  my 
back  is  to  the  wall  and  I  '11  die  in  the  last  ditch,  going 
down  with  flags  flying,  and  from  the  mountain  top  of 
Democracy,  hurling  defiance  at  the  foe,  soar  on  the  wings 
of  triumph,  regardless  of  the  party  lash  that  barks  at  my 
heels." 


DELIVERY. 

To  be  a  successful  debater  one  must  understand 
how  to  talk  and  how  to  act  in  the  presence  of  an 
audience.    Uncouthness   in   appearance   and   awk- 
283 


Debate 

wardness  in  speech  have  often  brought  defeat. 
Moreover,  it  is  not  enough  that  a  debater  re- 
frain from  offending  his  audience ;  his  bearing  and 
his  voice  should  be  of  positive  assistance  to  him  both 
in  pleasing  them  and  in  interpreting  to  them 
the  ideas  that  he  wishes  to  convey.  First  of  all,  a 
good  delivery  is  one  that  assists  in  making  the  ar- 
gument clear.  Its  next  most  important  function  is 
to  make  the  argument  forceful.  A  speaker  should 
never  rest  content  with  being  able  to  present  his  ar- 
gument merely  with  clearness;  he  should  strive  to 
be  interesting  and  impressive  also.  These  qualities 
depend  in  no  small  measure  upon  the  way  a  speech 
is  delivered.  The  best  story  or  the  best  argument 
will  fall  flat  unless  it  is  full  of  the  fire  of  enthusiasm, 
unless  the  personality  of  the  speaker  vivifies  it  and 
makes  it  a  living  reality.  Unfortunately,  this  in- 
tangible quality  in  a  speaker,  often  called  "  person- 
ality "  or  "  magnetism,"  cannot,  to  any  great  extent, 
be  taught.  In  the  main,  one  must  seek  this  and  de- 
velop it  for  himself.  A  text-book  can  point  out 
what  constitutes  good  form,  what  is  pleasing  and 
impressive  to  the  eye  and  to  the  ear,  and,  in  a 
word,  what  make  up  the  externals  of  a  good  de- 
livery; but  beyond  these  mechanical  directions  it 
cannot  go.  A  student  should  observe  the  follow- 
284 


Debate 

ing  fundamental  directions  as  his  first  step  toward 
becoming  a  successful  speaker.  Afterwards,  he 
should  cultivate  earnestness,  enthusiasm,  perception, 
a  sense  of  humor,  and  all  other  such  qualities  as  go 
to  make  up  a  really  great  speaker. 

Position.    The  best  position  for  a  debater  to  take 
on  the  stage  is  in  the  centre  well  toward  the  front. 
He  should  take  the  centre  because  in  that  position 
he  can  best  see  the  entire  audience,  and  the  entire 
audience  can  best  see  him.     He  should  stand  near 
the  front  edge  of  the  platform  for  several  reasons : 
first,  he  can  make  himself  more  easily  understood; 
his  voice  need  not  be  so  loud  in  order  to  be  heard 
distinctly  in  every  part  of  the  hall.     This  is  no  small 
advantage  for  one  who  is  not  gifted  with  unusual 
powers  of  speech.     In  the  next  place,  if  a  debater 
stands  close  to  his  audience,  he  can  adopt  a  more 
conversational  style  of  delivery.     He  can  establish 
a  direct  personal  connection  between  himself  and 
his  hearers  and  talk  to  them  as  man  to  man.     If 
the  hall  is  not  too  large,  he  need  scarcely  raise  his 
voice  from  its  accustomed  tone ;  he  can  look  his  au- 
dience in  the  eye,  receiving  the  stimulus  of  whatever 
interest  they  express;  and  at  the  same  time  he  can 
let  them  see  in  his  features  the  earnestness  and  sin- 
cerity that  he  feels.    To  stand  near  the  back  of  the 
285 


Debate 

stage  is  undoubtedly  easier  for  one  who  is  diffident 
or  inexperienced ;  perhaps  he  will  then  be  able  par- 
tially to  forget  where  he  is  and  to  imagine  that  he  is 
alone;  but  such  an  attitude  both  severs  all  personal 
connection  between  speaker  and  hearer,  and  shows 
that  the  debater  does  not  trust  himself,  that  he  has 
no  great  belief  in  his  subject,  and  that  he  fears  his 
audience.  An  impression  of  this  sort  is  a  great 
handicap  even  to  the  strongest  case.  If  one  would 
inspire  confidence,  he  must  appear  confident;  if 
one  would  make  friends,  he  must  be  friendly,  avoid- 
ing even  a  suggestion  of  aloofness.  To  accomplish 
these  purposes  as  far  as  is  possible  by  action,  a  de- 
bater should  come  close  to  his  audience,  having 
every  appearance  of  being  glad  that  he  is  to  speak 
and  confident  in  the  strength  of  the  side  that  he  is  to 
uphold. 

The  next  thing  for  a  speaker  to  learn  is  how  to 
stand.  He  should  not  take  a  natural  posture,  as 
some  writers  say,  unless  that  posture  is  one  of 
strength  and,  to  some  degree,  of  grace.  A  student 
without  training  will  usually  stand  with  his  head 
protruding  forward,  his  shoulders  drooping,  his 
body  twisted,  and  his  feet  far  apart,  with  all  his 
weight  on  one  leg.  Such  an  attitude  is  enough  to 
condemn  one  even  before  he  begins  to  speak.  A! 
286 


Debate 

slipshod  appearance  suggests  slipshod  thinking  and 
reasoning.  A  speaker  should  always  stand  erect, 
with  his  head  back,  chin  in,  shoulders  rolled  back 
and  down;  either  the  feet  should  be  near  together 
with  the  weight  of  the  body  on  both,  or  one  foot 
should  be  slightly  in  advance  of  the  other  with  the 
weight  of  the  body  entirely  on  the  rear  foot.  In  the 
latter  case,  the  leg  on  which  the  body  rests  must 
form  a  straight  line  with  the  body,  there  being  no 
unsightly  bulging  at  the  hip;  and  the  leg  on  which 
the  body  does  not  rest  must  be  slightly  bent  at  the 
knee.  This  posture  is  not  difficult  to  attain  if  one 
will  practise  it  frequently,  endeavoring  in  his  every- 
day life  to  walk  and  stand  in  a  soldierly  manner. 
On  the  other  hand,  erectness  should  not  be  carried 
to  such  an  extreme  as  to  become  stiffness.  A  de- 
bater's object  is  to  be  forceful  and  pleasing.  In 
striving  for  this  end,  he  should  always  remember 
that  he  can  very  easily  err  in  either  of  two  direc- 
tions. 

A  debater  should  allow  his  hands,  for  the  most 
part,  to  hang  naturally  at  his  sides.  There  may  be  a 
great  temptation  for  him  to  put  them  in  his  pockets, 
but  he  should  resist  this  for  two  reasons:  such  a 
procedure  is  not  considered  good  form,  and  his 
hands  are  less  available  for  instant  use  in  the  mak- 

287 


Debate 

ing  of  gestures.  If  one  is  delivering  a  lengthy  ar- 
gument, there  is  no  particular  harm  in  putting  one 
hand  behind  the  back  for  a  short  time,  or  even  in 
front  of  the  body  along  the  waist  line,  provided  this 
can  be  done  in  an  easy,  natural  manner;  but  in  the 
case  of  a  short  speech,  one  will  do  well  to  keep  his 
hands  at  his  sides.  They  must  hang  naturally  in 
order  not  to  attract  attention,  being  neither  closed 
tightly  nor  held  rigidly  open.  If  one  will  follow 
these  directions,  his  hands  and  arms  may  feel  awk- 
ward, but  they  will  not  appear  so. 

Another  important  principle  in  the  matter  of  po- 
sition requires  that  a  debater  shall  keep  his  eyes 
fixed  on  his  audience.  He  must  not  look  at  the 
floor,  at  the  ceiling,  or  at  the  walls.  He  must  look 
at  the  people  he  would  convince.  Only  in  this  way 
can  he  hope  to  hold  their  attention.  Only  in  this  way 
can  he  win  their  confidence  and  reach  their  feelings. 
To  look  into  space  means  to  debate  into  space. 

In  the  next  place,  a  speaker  must  beware  of  fall- 
ing into  ludicrous  and  disgusting  habits  of  deport- 
ment. Nervousness  will  often  cause  one  in  the 
presence  of  an  audience  to  keep  making  an  un- 
sightly gesture,  a  peculiar  twitch  or  step  that  will 
absolutely  ruin  his  whole  speech.  Some  speakers 
have  been  known  to  change  their  weight  from  one 
288 


Debate 

foot  to  the  other  as  often  as  twenty  or  thirty  times 
a  minute.  Other  speakers  have  adopted  a  peculiar 
jerk  of  the  head  or  a  constant  shrugging  of  the 
shoulders  that  is  most  disagreeable  to  see.  Still 
others  keep  constantly  opening  and  shutting  their 
hands.  For  years  one  speaker  of  some  small  prom- 
inence spent  the  greater  part  of  his  time  while  on 
the  platform  in  tugging  at  his  coat,  apparently  in  an 
effort  to  make  it  fit  better  around  the  collar.  All 
such  actions  as  these  are  to  be  carefully  guarded 
against. 

A  debater,  however,  is  not  expected  to  stand  per- 
fectly still:  he  should  use  considerable  interpreta- 
tive and  emphatic  action.  To  begin  with,  he  ought 
not  to  stand  all  the  time  in  exactly  the  same  spot. 
Monotony  of  position  is  to  be  avoided  as  well  as 
monotony  of  action  or  of  voice.  He  will  rest  him- 
self and  his  audience  if  he  will  occasionally  move 
about,  taking  two  or  three  steps  at  a  time.  In  do- 
ing this  he  must  never  go  backward ;  he  must  never 
retreat.  If,  for  any  reason,  he  began  his  speech 
while  standing  near  the  rear  or  the  centre  of  the 
stage,  he  should  move  forward ;  if  he  cannot  go  for- 
ward, he  may  move  back  and  forth  near  the  edge 
of  the  platform.  The  best  time  for  one  to  change 
his  position  is  at  the  conclusion  of  a  paragraph. 
19  289 


Debate 

A  paragraph  division,  it  will  be  remembered,  indi- 
cates a  change  in  thought.  If  a  debater,  therefore, 
makes  a  longer  pause  than  usual  at  this  point,  and  in 
addition  alters  his  position  slightly,  he  helps  inter- 
pret his  argument.  He  does  for  the  hearer  exactly 
what  indentation  does  for  the  reader. 

Gestures.  So  much  has  been  said  and  written 
about  gestures  that  a  student  is  often  puzzled  to 
know  whose  advice  to  follow  and  what  to  do.  Some 
writers  say  that  no  gestures  at  all  are  desirable; 
others  deem  them  necessary,  but  declare  that  they 
should  never  be  made  unless  they  are  spontaneous 
and  natural.  In  the  light  of  such  conflicting  advice, 
what  will  determine  the  proper  course  for  a  student 
to  follow?  The  answer  to  this  question  lies  in  a 
consideration  of  the  ultimate  object  of  a  course  in 
debating.  If  it  is  to  give  students  some  facility  in 
expressing  their  thoughts  before  an  audience,  if  it  is 
to  train  students  for  practical  work  in  business  and 
professional  life,  then  those  men  who  are  recognized 
as  the  polished  and  powerful  speakers  of  the  day 
should  be  taken  as  models.  Most  of  these,  it  will 
be  found,  use  gestures.  There  is  but  one  reasonable 
course,  then,  for  the  student  to  follow:  he  should 
make  gestures.  They  may  be  crude  and  awkward 
290 


Debate 

at  first,  but  only  by  practice  can  he  ever  hope  to 
improve  them. 

The  best  method  of  procedure,  undoubtedly,  is 
for  the  beginner  to  become  familiar  with  two  or 
three  of  the  most  common  gestures,  learning  how 
to  make  them  and  just  what  they  signify.  He 
should  then  use  them.  They  may  seem  mechanical 
and  ungainly  at  first,  but  constant  practice  both  in 
private  and  before  a  class  will  soon  enable  him  to 
make  them  with  considerable  emphasis  and  ease. 
From  this  point  on,  the  road  is  clear.  The  knowl- 
edge that  he  can  use  his  hands  to  good  advantage, 
even  in  a  limited  way,  will  soon  cause  him  to  make 
gestures  spontaneously.  Nor  will  he  be  limited  to 
the  few  with  which  he  started.  In  the  midst  of 
an  explanation  and  in  the  heat  of  an  impassioned 
plea,  he  will  find  himself  using  gestures  that  he 
had  not  thought  of  before.  The  awkward  and  pre- 
meditated gesture  with  which  he  began  will  have 
become  forceful  and  spontaneous. 

The  gestures  that  a  student  should  first  learn  to 
use  must  be  illustrated  to  him  by  his  instructor. 
To  see  a  gesture  made  several  times  gives  one  a  bet- 
ter idea  of  how  to  make  it  and  of  what  it  means 
than  could  a  dozen  pages  in  a  text-book.  The 
291 


Debate 

choice  of  gestures,  too,  may  rest  with  the  instructor. 
It  makes  no  particular  difference  with  what  ones  a 
debater  begins,  provided  that  they  are  simple  in 
execution  and  are  such  as  he  will  wish  to  use  in 
practically  every  debate  into  which  he  enters.  Or- 
dinarily, the  best  ones  for  a  beginner  to  practice  on 
are  those  indicating  emphasis.  If  he  wishes  for  a 
wider  field,  he  might  also  try  to  use  gestures  indi- 
cating magnitude  and  contrast.  When  he  has  fin- 
ished with  these,  he  should  hesitate  before  deliber- 
ately introducing  many  others.  A  debate  is  not  a 
dramatic  production,  and  it  should  in  no  wise  savor 
of  melodrama. 

Voice.  Correct  position  and  forceful  gestures 
are  very  important,  but  upon  no  one  thing  does  the 
success  of  a  debater,  aside  from  his  argument,  de- 
pend so  much  as  upon  his  voice.  One  may  move 
his  audience  in  spite  of  an  awkward  posture  and 
in  the  absence  of  all  intelligent  gestures,  but  unless 
his  voice  meets  certain  requirements,  his  case  is  al- 
most hopeless.  Above  all  else  a  speaker's  voice 
must  be  distinct. 

Distinctness  depends  upon  several  things.     First, 

the  voice  must  be  loud  enough  to  be  heard  without 

difficulty  in  every  part  of  the  room.     To  produce 

this  result,  one  should  speak  especially  to  those  in 

292 


Debate 

the  rear,  carefully  watching  to  see  whether  he  holds 
their  attention ;  at  the  same  time  he  must  be  careful 
not  to  shout  in  a  manner  unpleasant  to  those  sitting 
nearer  him.  The  stress  laid  by  public  speakers  upon 
the  matter  of  loudness  is  well  illustrated  by  a  story 
told  of  one  of  the  foremost  orators  of  the  day.  It 
is  said  that  he  invariably  stations  some  one  in  the 
back  of  the  audience  to  signal  to  him  when  his  voicd 
is  either  too  low  or  unnecessarily  loud. 

In  the  next  place,  distinctness  depends  upon  enun- 
ciation. The  debater  who  drops  off  final  syllables, 
slurs  consonants,  runs  words  together,  or  talks  with- 
out using  his  lips  and  without  opening  his  mouth  is 
hard  to  understand.  It  often  requires  considerable 
conscious  effort  to  pronounce  each  syllable  in  a  word 
distinctly,  but  the  resulting  clearness  is  worth  a 
strenuous  attempt.  One  great  cause  of  poor  enun- 
ciation is  too  rapid  talking.  A  fairly  slow  delivery 
is  preferable  not  only  because  the  words  can  be  more 
easily  understood,  but  also  because  it  gives  a  debater 
the  appearance  of  being  more  careful  and  accurate  in 
his  reasoning.  Great  rapidity  in  speech  may  be  due 
to  nervousness  or  inexperience ;  whatever  its  cause, 
it  is  usually  fatal  to  distinctness. 

A  pleasing  tone  of  voice  is  not  of  so  great  moment 
as  distinctness  of  utterance,  yet  its  cultivation  is  by 
293 


Debate 

no  means  to  be  neglected.  Harsh,  rasping  sounds 
and  nasal  twangs  are  disagreeable  to  hear,  and  no 
speaker  can  afford  to  offend  his  audience  in  this 
way.  An  unpleasant  voice  may  be  the  result  of 
some  physical  defect;  more  often  it  is  caused  by 
sheer  carelessness.  In  most  cases  a  little  practice 
will  produce  a  wonderful  change.  A  very  common 
breach  of  elegance  in  speaking  is  the  habit  of  drawl- 
ing out  an  er  sound  between  words.  The  constant 
repetition  of  this  is  exceedingly  annoying.  It  is  usu- 
ally caused  by  an  attempt  to  fill  in  a  gap  while  the 
speaker  is  groping  about  for  the  next  word.  The 
best  way  to  correct  this  blunder  is  to  be  so  familiar 
with  what  one  is  going  to  say  that  there  will  be  no 
gap  to  fill  in ;  but  in  case  one  does  have  to  hunt  for 
words,  it  is  a  thousand  times  preferable  to  leave  the 
gap  unfilled.  Each  word  should  stand  out  by  itself, 
even  though  there  is  a  pause  of  many  seconds.  To 
offend  the  ears  of  an  audience  with  a  crude  tone  of 
voice  or  with  meaningless  sounds  is  a  bad  violation 
of  propriety. 

,  The  first  step  to  be  taken  in  the  cultivation  of  a 
distinct  and  pleasing  voice  is  to  acquire  the  habit  of 
standing  correctly.  Under  the  subject  of  position 
it  was  stated  that  the  body  should  be  kept  erect,  the 
head  thrown  back,  and  the  shoulders  rolled  back 
294 


Debate 

and  down.  This  posture  is  the  best  not  only  be- 
cause it  is  the  most  graceful  but  because  it  gives  the 
speaker  the  greatest  command  of  his  vocal  organs. 
Stooping  shoulders  and  a  bowed  trunk  contract  the 
lungs  and  diminish  the  supply  of  breath,  and  a  bent 
neck  renders  the  cords  of  the  neck  less  controllable. 
After  taking  the  proper  position,  one  should  next 
endeavor  to  breathe  as  deeply  as  he  can.  The 
louder  he  has  to  speak,  the  deeper  should  be  his 
breathing.  Remembering  that  he  does  not  wish  to 
talk  fast,  he  will  do  well  to  fill  his  lungs  at  the 
close  of  each  sentence,  always  inhaling,  in  order 
not  to  make  an  unpleasant  gasping  noise,  through 
the  nose.  While  speaking,  he  should  control  his 
supply  of  breath  not  by  contracting  the  chest  but  by 
elevating  the  diaphragm.  This  procedure  will  give 
his  voice  a  richness  and  a  resonance  that  it  other- 
wise could  not  have.  Breathing  merely  from  the 
top  of  the  lungs  means  squeakiness  of  tone  and  poor 
control.  One  who  breathes  incorrectly  will  find  it 
necessary  to  shout  to  make  himself  heard  at 
a  distance;  one  who  breathes  correctly  can  usu- 
ally be  heard  under  the  same  conditions  by  merely 
talking.  The  superiority  of  the  round,  deep  tone 
over  the  shout  is  too  obvious  to  need  comment. 
In  the  next  place,  a  speaker  must  think  about  thi* 
295 


Debate 

voice.  Thought  and  study  are  as  essential  in  the 
training  of  a  voice  as  in  the  mastery  of  any  art.  A 
natural  voice  is  not  usually  pleasing;  it  becomes  so 
only  through  cultivation.  Much  of  this  training  can 
be  done  by  the  speaker  unaided.  Few  people  are 
so  insensible  to  qualities  of  sound  that  they  cannot 
detect  harshness  and  impurities  even  in  their  own 
utterance,  provided  that  they  will  give  the  matter 
their  attention.  It  is  not  enough,  however,  for  one 
to  watch  his  voice  only  while  he  is  debating  or  while 
he  is  repeating  his  arguments  in  preparation  for  a 
debate;  he  must  carry  constant  watchfulness  even 
into  his  daily  conversation.  The  services  of  a  good 
instructor  are  invaluable,  but  at  best  they  can  be 
only  auxiliary.  All  improvement  must  come 
through  the  efforts  of  the  speaker  himself. 

Attitude  toward  opponents.  If  one  will  bear  in 
mind  that  the  fundamental  purpose  of  argument  — 
whether  written  or  spoken  —  is  to  present  truth  in 
such  a  way  as  to  influence  belief,  he  will  at  once 
understand  that  a  debater  should  always  maintain 
toward  his  opponents  the  attitude  of  one  who  is  try- 
ing to  change  another's  belief,  the  attitude  of  friend- 
ship, fairness,  and  respect.  Such  a  point  of  view 
precludes  the  use  of  satire,  invective,  or  harsh  epi- 


Debate 

thets.  These  never  carry  conviction;  in  fact,  they 
invariably  destroy  the  effect  that  an  otherwise  good 
argument  might  produce.  Ridicule  and  bluster  may 
please  those  who  already  agree  with  the  speaker, 
but  with  these  people  he  should  be  little  concerned ; 
a  debater  worthy  of  the  name  seeks  to  change  the 
opinions  of  those  who  disagree  with  him.  For  this 
reason  he  is  diplomatic,  courteous,  and  urbane. 

A  debater  should,  moreover,  keep  to  this  same  at- 
titude even  though  his  opponent  introduce  objection- 
able personalities.  One  will  find  it  for  his  own  best 
interest  to  do  so.  Good  humor  makes  a  far  better 
impression  than  anger ;  it  suggests  strength  and  su- 
periority, while  anger,  as  everyone  knows,  is  often 
the  result  of  chagrin,  and  is  used  to  cover  up  weak- 
nesses. Besides,  an  audience  always  sympathizes 
with  the  man  who  is  first  attacked.  All  this  does 
not  mean  that  a  debater  should  calmly  submit  to 
unfairness  and  vilification.  On  the  contrary,  he 
should  defend  himself  spiritedly ;  but  he  should  not 
meet  abuse  with  abuse.  To  do  so  would  be  to 
throw  away  an  invaluable  opportunity.  He  should 
remain  dignified,  self-controlled,  and  good-humored ; 
then  by  treating  his  opponent  as  one  who  has  inad- 
vertently fallen  into  error,  and  by  pointing  out  the 
297 


Debate 

mistakes,  the  unfairness,  and  the  way  in  which  the 
real  question  has  been  ignored,  he  can  gain  an  in- 
estimable advantage. 

The  following  quotations  show  what  attitude  a 
debater  should  maintain  toward  his  opponents : — 

As  I  do  not  precisely  agree  in  opinion  with  any  gentle- 
man who  has  spoken,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  detaining 
the  committee  for  a  few  moments  while  I  offer  to  their 
attention  some  observations.  I  am  highly  gratified  with 
the  temper  and  ability  with  which  the  discussion  has 
hitherto  been  conducted.  It  is  honorable  to  the  House, 
and,  I  trust,  will  continue  to  be  manifested  on  many  future 
occasions.  (Henry  Clay.) 

Mr.  President,  I  had  occasion  a  few  days  ago  to  ex- 
pose the  utter  groundlessness  of  the  personal  charges 
made  by  the  Senator  from  Illinois  against  myself  and 
the  other  signers  of  the  Independent  Democratic  Appeal. 
I  now  move  to  strike  from  this  bill  a  statement  which 
I  will  to-day  demonstrate  to  be  without  any  foundation 
in  fact  or  history.  I  intend  afterwards  to  move  to  strike 
out  the  whole  clause  annulling  the  Missouri  prohibition. 

I  enter  into  this  debate,  Mr.  President,  in  no  spirit  of 
personal  unkindness.  The  issue  is  too  grave  and  too 
momentous  for  the  indulgence  of  such  feelings.  I  see 
the  great  question  before  me,  and  that  question  only. 
(Salmon  P.  Chase.) 

Compare  the  attitude  of  Mr.  Naylor  in  the  fol- 
lowing quotation  with  the  attitude  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in 
his  debates  with  Senator  Douglas.  It  is  needless  to 
point  out  which  must  have  had  the  better  effect  upon 
the  audience. 

298 


Debate 

The  gentleman  has  misconceived  the  spirit  and  tendency 
of  Northern  institutions.  He  is  ignorant  of  Northern 
character.  He  has  forgotten  the  history  of  his  country. 
Preach  insurrection  to  the  Northern  laborers !  Preach  in- 
surrection to  me!  Who  are  the  Northern  laborers?  The 
history  of  your  country  is  their  history.  (Charles  Nay- 
lor.) 

My  Fellow-Citizens:  When  a  man  hears  himself  some- 
-what  misrepresented,  it  provokes  him  —  at  least,  I  find  it 
so  with  myself;  but  when  misrepresentation  becomes  very 
gross  and  palpable,  it  is  more  apt  to  amuse  him.  The 
first  thing  I  see  fit  to  notice  is  the  fact  that  Judge  Douglas 
alleges,  after  running  through  the  history  of  the  old  Dem- 
ocratic and  the  old  Whig  parties,  that  Judge  Trumbull 
and  myself  made  an  arrangement  in  1854  by  which  I  was 
to  have  the  place  of  General  Shields  in  the  United  States 
Senate,  and  Judge  Trumbull  was  to  have  the  place  of 
Judge  Douglas.  Now  all  I  have  to  say  upon  that  subject 
is  that  I  think  no  man  —  not  even  Judge  Douglas  —  can 
prove  it,  because  it  is  not  true.  I  have  no  doubt  he  is 
"  conscientious  "  in  saying  it.  As  to  those  resolutions  that 
he  took  such  a  length  of  time  to  read,  as  being  the  plat- 
form of  the  Republican  party  in  1854,  I  say  I  never  had 
anything  to  do  with  them,  and  I  think  Trumbull  never 
had.  (Abraham  Lincoln  in  the  Ottawa  Joint  Debate.) 

Judge  Douglas  has  told  me  that  he  heard  my  speeches 
north  and  my  speeches  south  —  that  he  heard  me  at  Ot- 
tawa and  at  Freeport  in  the  north,  and  recently  at  Jones- 
boro  in  the  south,  and  that  there  was  a  very  different 
cast  of  sentiment  in  the  speeches  made  at  the  different 
points.  I  will  not  charge  upon  Judge  Douglas  that  he 
willfully  misrepresents  me,  but  I  call  upon  every  fair- 
minded  man  to  take  those  speeches  and  read  them,  and 
I  dare  him  to  point  out  any  difference  between  my 
speeches  north  and  south.  (Lincoln  in  the  Charleston 
Joint  Debate.) 

299 


Debate 

HOW  TO  JUDGE  A  DEBATE. 

Three  judges  usually  award  the  decision  in  a  de- 
bating contest.  Their  sole  duty  is  to  determine 
which  side  had  the  better  of  the  argument.  Some- 
times the  method  that  they  shall  follow  in  arriving 
at  a  decision  is  marked  out  for  them ;  they  are  given 
printed  slips  indicating  the  relative  importance  of 
evidence,  reasoning,  delivery,  and  the  other  points 
that  must  be  considered.  Most  commonly,  however, 
each  judge  is  instructed  to  decide  for  himself  what 
constitutes  excellence  in  debate.  According  to  the 
rules  governing  any  particular  debate,  the  judges 
may  cast  their  ballots  with  or  without  previous  con- 
sultation with  each  other. 

The  following  outline  gives  in  condensed  form  the 
main  points  that  a  judge  should  consider.  It  will  be 
of  service  not  only  to  the  judges  of  a  debate  but 
to  the  contestants,  as  it  gives  a  comprehensive  view 
of  just  what  is  expected  of  a  debater. 

I.     Which  side  has  the  better  analysis  ? 
II.     Which  side  has  the  stronger  proof? 

A.  Consider  the  preponderance  of  the  evi- 

dence. 

B.  Consider  the  quality  of  the  evidence. 

C.  Consider  the  skill  used  in  reasoning. 

300 


Debate 

III.  Which  side  offers  the  better  refutation? 

A.  See  which  side  has  the  more  main  points 
left  standing  after  the  refutation  has 
been  given. 

IV.  Which  side  has  the  better  delivery? 

A.  Consider  general  bearing,  voice,  and  lan- 
guage. 


CHAPTER  X 
THE  CONCLUSION 

MOST  arguments  have  a  more  or  less  formal  end- 
ing. Both  writers  and  speakers,  when  seeking  to 
influence  the  beliefs  and  acts  of  others,  have  usually 
deemed  it  advisable,  upon  completing  their  proof, 
to  add  a  few  summarizing  words  and  to  make  a  final 
appeal  to  the  emotions.  This  part  of  the  argument 
that  comes  at  the  close  and  that  contains  no  new 
proof  is  called  the  conclusion,  or  the  peroration.  In 
spoken  argument,  occasionally,  the  conclusion  is 
wholly  ignored.  If  at  any  time,  regardless  of  the 
point  he  may  have  reached,  an  arguer  clearly  per- 
ceives that  he  has  won  his  case,  he  is  wise  to  stop 
immediately  and  avoid  the  danger  of  adding  any- 
thing that  might  possibly  detract  from  his  success. 
Such  an  experience  may  frequently  happen  to  a 
salesman,  a  preacher,  a  lawyer.  Arguments,  how- 
ever, that  are  written  or  that  are  delivered  before 
large  audiences  cannot  be  curtailed  in  this  way. 
Under  such  conditions  the  arguer  is  unable  to  tell 
302 


The  Conclusion 

when  he  has  won  his  case :  he  must  use  all  his  proof 
and  make  it  emphatic  in  every  way  possible.  There- 
fore the  student  who  is  arguing  for  the  sake  of  prac- 
tice will  do  well  to  disregard  exceptions  and  to 
close  all  his  arguments,  both  written  and  spoken, 
with  a  peroration. 

The  same  two  elements  —  conviction  and  per- 
suasion —  that  make  up  the  introduction  and  the  dis- 
cussion are  ordinarily  found  also  in  the  conclusion. 
The  general  principles  that  govern  the  proportionate 
amount  of  each  to  be  used  in  the  first  two  divisions 
of  an  argument  apply  equally  to  the  third  division. 
In  every  case  the  relative  amount  of  space  to  be  de- 
voted to  conviction  and  to  persuasion  depends  upon 
the  nature  of  the  subject  and  the  attitude  of  the 
audience.  In  some  instances  a  conclusion  should 
consist  wholly  of  conviction ;  in  other  instances  per- 
suasion should  predominate;  most  commonly  there 
should  be  a  judicious  combination  of  both. 

In  concluding  an  argument  before  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court  on  the  question  of  whether  or 
not  a  certain  law  passed  in  New  York  was  repug- 
nant to  the  Constitution  or  consistent  with  it,  Webr^ 
ster  spoke  as  follows : — 

To  recapitulate  what  has  been  said,  we  maintain,  first' 
that  the  Constitution,  by  its  grants  to  Congress  and  its: 

303 


The  Conclusion 

prohibitions  on  the  States,  has  sought  to  establish  one 
uniform  standard  of  value,  or  medium  of  payment.  Sec- 
ond, that,  by  like  means,  it  has  endeavored  to  provide  for 
one  uniform  mode  of  discharging  debts  when  they  are 
to  be  discharged  without  payment.  Third,  that  these  ob- 
jects are  connected,  and  that  the  first  loses  much  of  its 
importance,  if  the  last,  also,  be  not  accomplished.  Fourth, 
that,  reading  the  grant  to  Congress,  and  the  prohibition 
on  the  States  together,  the  inference  is  strong  that  the 
Constitution  intended  to  confer  exclusive  power  to  pass 
bankrupt  laws  on  Congress.  Fifth,  that  the  prohibition  in 
the  tenth  section  reaches  to  all  contracts,  existing  or 
future,  in  the  same  way  that  the  other  prohibition  in  the 
same  section  extends  to  all  debts  existing  or  future. 
Sixth,  that,  upon  any  other  construction,  one  great  polit- 
ical object  of  the  Constitution  will  fail  of  its  accom- 
plishment.1 

In  this  conclusion,  it  will  be  noticed,  there  is  no 
persuasion.  Apparently  the  subject  was  of  such 
a  nature  that  only  clear  and  logical  reasoning  was 
required.  An  appeal  to  the  emotions  would  un- 
doubtedly have  been  out  of  place.  In  direct  con- 
trast to  the  preceding  method  of  summarizing  a 
speech  a  good  example  of  a  persuasive  conclusion 
may  be  found  in  The  Dartmouth  College  Case, 
which  Webster  argued  before  this  same  tribunal, 
and  which  also  involved  the  constitutionality  of  a 
State  law.  In  this  peroration  Webster's  emotional 

xThc   Case   of   Ogden  and   Saunders.     Webster's   Great    Speeches, 
page  1 88.     Little,  Brown  &  Co. 

304 


The  Conclusion 

appeal  was  so  strong  that,  it  is  said,  there  was  not 
a  dry  eye  in  the  court  room. 

In  writing  as  well  as  in  speaking  one  must  allow 
common  sense  to  decide  what  shall  be  the  nature  of 
his  peroration.  The  following  is  a  typical  example 
of  a  conclusion  into  which  persuasion  cannot  well 
enter.  It  is  taken  from  the  close  of  a  chapter,  se- 
lected at  random,  in  Darwin's  Structure  and  Dis- 
tribution of  Coral  Reefs. 

It  has,  I  think,  been  shown  in  this  chapter,  that  sub- 
sidence explains  both  the  normal  structure  and  the  less 
regular  forms  of  those  two  great  classes  of  reefs  which 
have  justly  excited  the  astonishment  of  all  the  naturalists 
who  have  sailed  through  the  Pacific  and  Indian  oceans. 
The  necessity,  also,  that  a  foundation  should  have  existed 
at  the  proper  depth  for  the  growth  of  the  corals  over 
certain  large  areas,  almost  compels  us  to  accept  this 
theory.  But  further  to  test  its  truth  a  crowd  of  questions 
may  be  asked.  .  .  .  These  several  questions  will  be 
considered  in  the  following  chapter. 

A  type  of  conclusion  far  more  common  and  usu- 
ally far  more  effective  is  one  that  not  only  refers 
to  the  preceding  arguments  but  also  contains  con- 
siderable persuasion.  The  peroration  marks  the 
final  opportunity  for  the  arguer  to  move  his  audi- 
ence. Here  he  should  make  his  greatest  effort. 
Since  belief  and  action  ordinarily  depend  upon  both 
*>  305 


The  Conclusion 

the  intellect  and  the  will,  the  arguer  who  would  at- 
tain success  must  appeal  to  both.  Merely  to  call 
to  mind  the  proof  that  he  has  advanced  is  seldom 
enough :  he  must  arouse  the  emotions.  The  perora- 
tion of  an  argument  is  like  the  finish  of  a  race  or 
the  last  charge  in  a  battle.  In  the  conclusion  the 
arguer  should  use  his  greatest  skill,  his  strongest 
eloquence.  Here  are  found  the  most  inspiring  pas- 
sages in  the  masterpieces  of  oratory. 

Some  of  the  various  ways  for  reaching  the  emo- 
tions have  been  pointed  out  in  the  chapter  dealing 
with  persuasion  in  the  introduction.  These  same 
suggestions  apply  equally  well  to  persuasion  in  the 
conclusion.  The  best  advice  that  can  be  given,  how- 
ever, is  for  one  to  use  his  common  sense.  He  must 
consider  his  subject,  his  audience,  his  ability,  and 
his  own  interest  in  the  case  —  all  the  circumstances 
in  connection  with  his  argument  —  and  then  de- 
pend, not  upon  some  set  formula,  but  upon  his 
judgment  to  tell  him  in  what  way  he  can  best 
be  persuasive.  The  following  illustrations  will 
give  some  idea  of  how  successful  writers  and  speak- 
ers have  concluded  their  arguments  with  persuasion. 
Notice  the  patriotic  appeal  in  the  first  quotation : — 

Whether  we  have  or  have  not  degenerated  compared 
with  (say)  fifty  or  a  hundred  years  ago  may  be  a  question 

306 


The  Conclusion 

difficult  to  settle,  but  it  is  quite  clear  that  we  are  pitifully, 
disastrously  below  the  normal  standard  of  manhood  and 
womanhood  which  a  great  nation  should  set  itself. 

Adequate  nourishment  for  our  children,  immunity  from 
exhausting  and  mechanical  employments  at  the  most  crit- 
ical period  of  adolescence,  an  extension  of  educational 
influences  —  can  there  be  any  objects  of  expenditures  more 
likely  than  these  to  repay  themselves  a  thousandfold  in 
the  improved  vigor  and  intelligence  which  form  the  only 
sure  basis  of  a  nation's  greatness?1 

In  the  following  the  speaker  points  out  the  awful 
responsibility  resting  upon  the  jury  and  exhorts 
them  to  render  justice: — 

Let  me,  therefore,  remind  you,  that  though  the  day 
may  soon  come  when  our  ashes  shall  be  scattered  before 
the  winds  of  heaven,  the  memory  of  what  you  do  cannot 
die.  It  will  carry  down  to  your  posterity  your  honor  or 
your  shame.  In  the  presence,  and  in  the  name  of  that 
everliving  God,  I  do  therefore  conjure  you  to  reflect  that 
you  have  your  characters,  your  consciences,  that  you  have 
also  the  character,  perhaps  the  ultimate  destiny,  of  your 
country  in  your  hands.  In  that  awful  name  I  do  con- 
jure you  to  have  mercy  upon  your  country  and  upon  your- 
selves, and  so  to  judge  now  as  you  will  hereafter  be 
judged;  and  I  do  now  submit  the  fate  of  my  client,  and 
of  that  country  which  we  have  yet  in  common  to  your 
disposal.2 

In  the  following  extract  from  the  conclusion  of 
Webster's  plea  in  The  Dartmouth  College  Case  con- 

1  Frances  E.  Warwick,   Fortnightly  Review,  Vol.   LXXIX,   p.    515. 
'John   Philpot  Curran,  On  the  Liberty  of  the  Press. 


307 


The  Conclusion 

sider  how  he  showed  the  magnitude  of  the  question 
that  was  at  issue : — 

The  case  before  the  court  is  not  of  ordinary  importance, 
nor  of  everyday  occurrence.  It  affects  not  this  college 
only,  but  every  college,  and  all  the  literary  institutions  of 
the  country.  They  have  flourished  hitherto,  and  have  be- 
come in  a  high  degree  respectable  and  useful  to  the  com- 
munity. They  have  all  a  common  principle  of  existence, 
the  inviolability  of  their  charters.  It  will  be  a  dangerous, 
a  most  dangerous  experiment,  to  hold  these  institutions 
subject  to  the  rise  and  fall  of  popular  parties,  and  the 
fluctuation  of  political  opinions.  If  the  franchise  may  at 
any  time  be  taken  away,  or  impaired,  the  property  also 
may  be  taken  away,  or  impaired,  or  its  use  perverted. 
Benefactors  will  have  no  certainty  of  effecting  the  object 
of  their  bounty;  and  learned  men  will  be  deterred  from 
devoting  themselves  to  the  service  of  such  institutions, 
from  the  precarious  title  of  their  offices.  Colleges  and 
halls  will  be  deserted  by  all  better  spirits,  and  become  a 
theatre  for  the  contentions  of  politics.  Party  and  faction 
will  be  cherished  in  the  places  consecrated  to  piety  and 
learning.  These  consequences  are  neither  remote  nor  pos- 
sible only.  They  are  certain  and  immediate.1 

As  a  rule,  most  of  the  criticisms  that  can  be 
made  of  any  conclusion  pertain  to  matters  of  taste 
and  judgment.  A  writer  or  speaker  may  have 
made  too  detailed  or  too  brief  a  summary;  he  may 
have  erred  in  choosing  the  best  method  of  persua- 
sion; he  may  have  injured  his  argument  in  almost 
countless  other  ways.  In  these  matters  a  text-book 

1  Webster's  Great  Speeches,  p.  23. 

308 


The  Conclusion 

can  give  only  general  and  rather  vague  instruction. 
Each  argument  must  be  suited  to  the  particular 
case  in  hand.  There  are  several  common  errors  in 
students'  work,  however,  that  should  always  be 
avoided  and  that  can  definitely  be  pointed  out. 

1.  An  argument  should  not  have  an  abrupt  and 
jerky  ending.     It  is  not  uncommon  especially  in 
class  room  debate,  to  hear  a  student  at  the  close  of 
his  discussion  say,  "  This  is  my  proof ;  I  leave  the 
decision  to  the  judges  ";  or  "  Thus  you  see  I  have 
established  my  proposition."     Such  an  ending  can  in 
no  way  be  called  a  conclusion  or  a  peroration. 

2.  A   conclusion  should  contain  no  new  proof. 
Violations   of   this   principle   brand   an   arguer   as 
careless,  and  greatly  weaken  his  argument.     Proof 
is  most  convincing  when  arranged  in   its  proper 
place     and    in     its    logical    order.     Furthermore, 
the  purpose  of  the  conclusion  is  to  review  the  points 
that  have  already  been  established.     If  the  arguer 
forgets  this  fact  and  mixes  proof  with  summary, 
the  audience  is  liable  to  become  badly  confused  and 
not  know  what  has  been  established  and  what  has 
not. 

3.  A  conclusion  should  not  refer  to  a  point  that 
has    not    already    been    established.     A    careless 
writer  or  debater  will  sometimes  state  that  he  has 

309 


The  Conclusion 

proved  an  argument  which  he  has  not  previously 
touched  upon.  Such  a  procedure  smacks  of  trick- 
ery or  ignorance,  and  is  sure  to  be  disastrous.  Not 
only  will  the  audience  throw  out  that  particular 
point,  but  they  will  be  highly  prejudiced  against 
both  the  arguer  and  his  argument.  It  is  permissible 
for  one  to  maintain  that  he  has  proved  a  point  even 
though  the  proof  be  somewhat  inadequate,  but  for 
one  to  refer  in  his  conclusion  to  a  point  that  he 
then  mentions  for  the  first  time  is  unpardonable. 

4.  A  conclusion  must  reaffirm  the  proposition 
exactly  as  stated  at  the  beginning.  Sometimes  a 
writer,  discovering  at  the  close  of  his  argument  that 
he  has  not  stuck  to  his  subject  but  has  proved  some- 
thing different,  or  at  best  has  proved  only  a  part  of 
his  subject,  states  as  his  decision  a  totally  different 
proposition  from  that  with  which  he  started.  To 
illustrate,  a  student  once  attempted  to  argue  on  the 
affirmative  side  of  the  proposition,  "  The  United 
States  should  discontinue  its  protective  tariff  pol- 
icy " ;  but  he  gave  as  his  concluding  sentence,  "  These 
facts,  then,  prove  to  you  that  our  present  tariff  du- 
ties are  too  high."  This  last  sentence  embodied  the 
real  proposition  which  he  had  discussed,  and  if  he 
had  taken  as  his  subject,  "  Our  present  tariff  duties 
are  too  high,"  his  argument  would  have  been  suc- 
310 


The  Conclusion 

cessful.  As  it  was,  his  failure  to  support  the  prop- 
osition with  which  he  started  rendered  his  whole 
effort  worthless. 

A  conclusion  that  is  weaker  than  the  proposition 
is  commonly  called  a  "  qualifying  conclusion." 
When  one  has  fallen  into  this  error  there  are  two 
possible  ways  of  removing  it:  one  is  to  change  the 
whole  argument  so  that  the  conclusion  will  affirm 
the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  proposition;  the  other  is 
to  change  the  proposition.  In  a  debate,  of  course, 
or  whenever  a  subject  is  assigned,  the  latter  method 
cannot  be  followed. 

As  a  final  example  of  what  a  good  peroration 
should  be,  consider  the  following  conclusion  of  Web- 
ster's speech,  delivered  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
on  The  Presidential  Veto  of  the  United  States  Bank 
Bill.  Notice  the  skillful  interweaving  of  conviction 
and  persuasion,  and  remember  in  connection  with 
the  principle  of  proportion  that  this  is  the  conclusion 
of  a  speech  containing  about  14,000  words. 

"Mr.  President,  we  have  arrived  at  a  new  epoch.  We 
are  entering  on  experiments,  with  the  government  and 
the  Constitution  of  the  country,  hitherto  untried,  and  of 
fearful  and  appalling  aspect.  This  message  calls  us  to 
the  contemplation  of  a  future  which  little  resembles  the 
past.  Its  principles  are  at  war  with  all  that  public  opin- 
ion has  sustained,  and  all  which  the  experience  of  the 
government  has  sanctioned.  It  denies  first  principles;  it 


The  Conclusion 

contradicts  truths,  hitherto  received  as  indisputable.  It 
denies  to  the  judiciary  the  interpretation  of  law,  and 
claims  to  divide  with  Congress  the  power  of  originating 
statutes.  It  extends  the  grasp  of  executive  pretension 
over  every  power  of  the  government.  But  this  is  not  all. 
It  presents  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  Union  in  the  atti- 
tude of  arguing  away  the  powers  of  that  government  over 
which  he  has  been  chosen  to  preside;  and  adopting  for 
this  purpose  modes  of  reasoning  which,  even  under  the 
influence  of  all  proper  feeling  towards  high  official  station, 
it  is  difficult  to  regard  as  respectable.  It  appeals  to  every 
prejudice  which  may  betray  men  into  a  mistaken  view  of 
their  own  interests,  and  to  every  passion  which  may  lead 
them  to  disobey  the  impulses  of  their  understanding.  It 
urges  all  the  specious  topics  of  State  rights  and  national 
encroachment  against  that  which  a  great  majority  of  the 
States  have  affirmed  to  be  rightful,  and  in  which  all  of 
them  have  acquiesced.  It  sows,  in  an  unsparing  manner, 
the  seeds  of  jealousy  and  ill-will  against  that  govern- 
ment of  which  its  author  is  the  official  head.  It  raises  a 
cry,  that  liberty  is  in  danger,  at  the  very  moment  when 
it  puts  forth  claims  to  powers  heretofore  unknown  and 
unheard  of.  It  affects  alarm  for  the  public  freedom, 
when  nothing  endangers  that  freedom  so  much  as  its  own 
unparalleled  pretences.  This,  even,  is  not  all.  It  mani- 
festly seeks  to  inflame  the  poor  against  the  rich;  it  wan- 
tonly attacks  whole  classes  of  the  people,  for  the  purpose 
of  turning  against  them  the  prejudices  and  the  resentment 
of  other  classes.  It  is  a  state  paper  which  finds  no  topic 
too  exciting  for  its  use,  no  passion  to  inflammable  for 
its  address  and  its  solicitation. 

Such  is  this  message.  It  remains  now  for  the  people 
of  the  United  States  to  choose  between  the  principles  here 
avowed  and  their  government.  These  cannot  subsist  to- 
gether. The  one  or  the  other  must  be  rejected.  If  the 
sentiments  of  the  message  shall  receive  general  approba- 

3I2 


The  Conclusion 

tion,  the  Constitution  will  have  perished  even  earlier  than 
the  moment  which  its  enemies  originally  allowed  for  the 
termination  of  its  existence.  It  will  not  have  survived  to 
its  fiftieth  year."  1 

1  Webster's  Great  Speeches,  page  338. 


313 


APPENDICES^ 


APPENDIX  A 

} 

A  WRITTEN  ARGUMENT  AND  ITS  BRIEF. 

SHOULD  IMMIGRATION  BE  RE- 
STRICTED?1 

SIMON  GREENLEAF  CROSWELL 

DURING  recent  years  there  has  been  a  growing 
interest  in  plans  for  further  checking  or  limiting  the 
tide  of  immigration  whose  waves  sweep  in  upon  the 
United  States  almost  daily  in  constantly  increasing 
volume.  Several  restrictive  measures  are  already 
in  force :  paupers,  idiots,  contract  laborers,  the  Chi- 
nese, and  several  other  classes  of  people  are  pro- 
hibited from  entering  our  ports.  The  subject  has 
been  discussed  in  legislatures,  in  political  meetings, 
from  pulpits,  in  reform  clubs,  and  among  individuals 
on  every  hand.  The  reason  for  the  interest  which 
the  subject  now  excites  is  easily  found  in  the  re- 
cent enormous  increase  of  immigration. 

The  problem  divides  itself  at  the  outset  into  two 

1The  North  American  Review,  May,   1897,  page  536. 

316 


Argument  and  Brief 


SHOULD  IMMIGRATION  BE  RE- 
STRICTED? 

Negative  Brief. 

INTRODUCTION. 

I.  The  enormous  increase  in  immigration  gives 
rise  to  a  growing  interest  in  some  plan  for 
further  limiting  the  number  of  immigrants 
coming  to  the  United  States. 

A.  Paupers,    idiots,    contract    laborers,    the 

Chinese,  and  several  other  classes  of 
people  are  already  excluded. 

B.  The  subject  has  been  discussed  in  legis- 

latures, in  political  meetings,  from  pul- 
pits, in  reform  clubs,  and  among  indi- 
viduals. 

II.    The  problem  divides  itself  into  two  distinct 
questions : — 

317 


Argument  and  Brief 

'distinct  questions:  First,  is  it  for  the  advantage 
of  the  United  States  that  immigration  be  further 
checked  or  limited?  Second,  if  so,  in  what  way 
should  the  check  or  limit  be  applied  ? 

It  is  evident  that  these  questions  cover  two  dis- 
tinct fields  of  inquiry,  the  industrial  and  the  political. 
Nor  can  the  two  fields  be  examined  simultaneously, 
for  the  reasons,  if  there  are  any,  from  a  political 
point  of  view,  why  immigration  should  be  limited, 
would  not  apply  to  the  questions  viewed  on  its 
industrial  side,  and  vice  versa. 

Taking  up  first  the  industrial  question,  we  may 
assume  that  the  entrance  of  the  swarms  of  immi- 
grants into  our  country  represents  the  introduction 
of  just  so  much  laboring  power  into  the  country, 
and  we  may  also  assume  as  a  self-evident  proposi- 
tion that  the  introduction  of  laboring  power  into  an 
undeveloped  or  partially  developed  country  is  advan- 
tageous until  the  point  is  reached  at  which  all  the 
laborers  whom  the  country  can  support  have  been 
introduced.  Adam  Smith  says  that  labor  is  the 
wealth  of  nations.  If  this  is  true,  the  laborer  is 
the  direct  and  only  primary  means  of  acquiring 
wealth.  The  facts  of  the  history  of  our  country 
t>ear  out  this  view.  Beginning  with  the  clearing  of 
the  forests,  the  settlements  of  the  villages,  the  culti- 

318 


Argument  and  Brief 

A.  Is  it  for  the  advantage  of  the  United 

States    that    immigration    be    further 
checked  or  limited? 

B.  If  so,  in  what  way  should  the  check  or 

limit  be  applied? 

III.  These  questions  must  be  considered,  first, 
from  the  industrial  point  of  view ;  and,  sec- 
ondly, from  the  political  point  of  view. 

DISCUSSION. 

Immigration  should  not  be  further  restricted,  for 
I.     From  an  industrial  point  of  view,  the  United 
States  needs  immigrants,  for 

A.  Without  question,  immigrants  represent  la- 

boring power. 

B.  The  United  States  needs  more  laboring 

power,  for 

I.    Admittedly,  the  introduction  of  labor- 
ing power  into  an  undeveloped  or 
partially  developed  country  is  advan- 
tageous up  to  the  saturation  point. 
a.    Adam  Smith  says  that  labor  is  the 
wealth  of  nations. 


319 


Argument  and  Brief 

vation  of  farms,  proceeding  to  the  establishment  of 
the  lumber  industries,  the  cultivation  of  vast  wheat 
and  corn  fields,  the  production  of  cotton,  the  work- 
ing of  the  coal  and  oil  fields  of  Pennsylvania,  the  de- 
velopment of  the  mining  districts  of  the  West,  cul- 
minating in  the  varied  and  extensive  manufactures 
of  the  Eastern  and  Central  States,  the  laborer  has 
been  the  Midas  whose  touch  has  turned  all  things 
to  gold. 

There  is,  however,  a  limitation  to  the  principle 
that  the  introduction  of  laborers  into  a  partially  de- 
veloped country  is  advantageous.  A  point  is  finally 
reached  which  may  be  called  the  saturation  point  of 
the  country ;  that  is,  it  has  as  many  inhabitants  as  it 
can  supply  with  reasonably  good  food  and  clothing. 
This  saturation  point  may  be  reached  many  times  in 
the  history  of  a  country,  for  the  ratio  between  the 
food  and  clothing  products  and  the  population  is 
constantly  varying.  New  modes  of  cultivation,  and 
the  use  of  machinery,  as  well  as  natural  causes  af- 
fecting the  fertility  of  land,  which  are  as  yet  ob- 
scure, render  a  country  at  one  time  capable  of  sup- 
porting a  much  larger  number  of  inhabitants  than 
at  another  time.  Still,  there  is  a  broad  and  general 
truth  that,  time  and  place  and  kind  of  people  being 
320 


Argument  and  Brief 

b.     The  history  of  America  has  borne 

out  this  statement,  for 
i'.     The    laborer   has    turned    the 
forests,    fields,    and    mines 
into  wealth. 

The  United  States  is  still  under-popu- 
lated, for 


321 


Argument  and  Brief 

considered,  some  countries  are  over-populated,  and 
some  are  under-populated. 

We  are  accustomed  to  say  that  some  of  the  coun- 
tries of  Europe  are  over-populated,  and  there  are 
among  us  some  who  are  beginning  to  say  that  the 
United  States  has  reached  the  same  point.  This 
is  far  from  being  the  case,  and  a  single  glance  at  the 
comparative  average  density  of  population  of  the 
principal  European  nations  and  of  the  United  States 
will  be  sufficient  to  drive  this  idea  out  of  any  fair- 
minded  person's  head. 

The  most  thickly  settled  country  of  modern  Eu- 
rope is  the  Netherlands,  which  had,  in  the  year  1890, 
the  very  large  average  of  three  hundred  and  fifty- 
nine  inhabitants  per  square  mile  of  territory.  Great 
Britain  came  next,  with  the  almost  equally  large 
average  of  three  hundred  and  eleven  inhabitants  per 
square  mile  of  territory.  Germany  had  two  hun- 
dred and  thirty-four  and  France  one  hundred  and 
eighty-seven.  Taking  in  for  purposes  of  compari- 
son, though  not  of  much  force  in  the  argument, 
China,  we  find  there  an  average  population  of  two 
hundred  and  ninety-five  inhabitants  per  square  mile 
of  territory.  It  is  a  question  of  some  difficulty  to 
decide  in  any  specific  case  whether  a  country  has 
reached  the  point  of  over-population.  We  may  ad- 
322 


Argument  and  Brief 

a.  There  is  a  smaller  population  to 
the  square  mile  than  in  many 
European  countries,  for 


I'.  In  1890  the  Netherlands  had 
the  average  of  three  hun- 
dred and  fifty-nine  inhab- 
itants to  the  square  mile 


323 


Argument  and  Brief 

mit  that  Great  Britain,  with  its  average  of  three 
hundred  and  eleven  inhabitants  per  mile,  is  over- 
populated,  though  the  conditions  of  life  do  not  seem 
to  be  wholly  intolerable,  even  to  the  lowest  classes 
there.  If  Great  Britain  is  over-populated,  a  fortiori 
are  the  Netherlands,  and  we  may  even  go  so  far  as 
to  admit  that  Germany,  with  its  average  of  two  hun- 
dred and  thirty-four  inhabitants  per  square  mile,  is 
over-populated.  But  when  we  come  to  France,  with 
its  one  hundred  and  eighty-seven  inhabitants  per 
square  mile,  we  may  pause  and  see  what  are  the 
conditions  of  the  French  people.  So  far  as  it  is 
possible  to  judge  of  a  people  in  the  lump,  it  would 
seem  that  the  population  of  France  is  not  excessive 
for  the  area.  The  land  holdings  are  divided  up  into 
very  small  lots,  but  are  held  by  a  great  number  of 
people.  Mackenzie,  in  his  history  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  says  that  nearly  two-thirds  of  the  French 
householders  are  landowners,  while  only  one  British 
householder  in  every  four  is  an  owner  of  land. 
This  condition  results  partly  from  the  difference  in 
the  system  of  inheritance  of  land  in  the  two  coun- 
tries, but  would  be  impossible  if  the  country  were 
over-populated.  Moreover,  there  are  five  millions 
of  people  in  France  whose  possessions  in  land  are 
under  six  acres  each. 

324 


Argument  and  Brief 

2'.    Great  Britain  had  the  average 
of  three  hundred  and  eleven. 


3'.    Germany  had  two  hundred  and 
thirty-four. 

£'.    France  had  one  hundred  and 
eighty-seven. 


325 


Argument  and  Brief 

Taking,  then,  the  population  of  France,  averaging 
187  per  square  mile,  as  being  at  least  not  above  the 
normal  rate  of  population,  what  do  we  find  in  com- 
paring it  with  the  population  of  the  United  States? 
We  find  over  here  vast  tracts  of  country,  amounting 
to  nearly  one-third  by  actual  measurement,  of  the 
whole  area  of  the  United  States,  and  including  all 
the  States  west  of  the  Missouri  and  Mississippi  val- 
leys (except  a  portion  of  California),  having  a  pop- 
ulation of  less  than  six  individuals  per  square  mile. 
It  would  seem  as  if  the  mere  statement  of  this  fact 
were  alone  sufficient  to  disprove  any  proposition 
which  asserts  that  the  saturation  point  of  population 
has  been  reached  in  the  United  States.  While  that 
immense  expanse  of  country  averages  only  six  in- 
dividuals to  the  square  mile,  there  can  be  no  reason 
for  saying  that  this  country  is  over-populated. 
Coming  now  to  the  more  thickly  settled  portions  of 
the  United  States,  we  find  a  large  area  spread  out 
over  various  parts  of  the  States  having  a  population 
between  seven  and  forty-five  individuals  per  square 
mile.  In  a  very  few  States,  New  York,  Pennsyl- 
vania, Michigan,  Ohio,  and  Indiana,  the  population 
of  the  whole  State  averages  over  forty-five  and 
under  ninety  individuals  per  square  mile,  and  the 
same  average  holds  in  parts  of  Massachusetts,  Con- 
326 


Argument  and  Brief 


5'.  In  about  one-third  of  the 
whole  area  of  the  United 
States,  the  average  is  less 
than  six. 


6'.  In  certain  more  thickly  settled 
portions  the  average  is  from 
seven  to  forty-five. 

7'.     In  New  York,   Pennsylvania, 
Michigan,   Ohio,   and   Indi- 
ana, the  average  is  from  for- 
ty-five to  ninety. 
327 


Argument  and  Brief 

necticut,  Illinois,  Kentucky,  and  isolated  spots  in  the 
South.  In  a  small  territory,  made  up  of  parts  of 
Massachusetts,  Pennsylvania,  and  New  Jersey,  the 
population  averages  over  ninety  per  square  mile. 

The  contrast  between  these  averages  of  popula- 
tion in  various  portions  of  the  United  States,  the 
highest  of  which  is  about  ninety  individuals  per  mile 
(and  that  over  very  small  portions  of  the  area  of  the 
United  States)  and  the  average  densities  of  the  Eu- 
ropean countries,  previously  examined,  shows  how 
very  far  the  United  States  is  from  complete  popula- 
tion. This  appears  still  more  clearly  when  the  aver- 
age population  of  the  United  States  taken  as  a 
whole,  is  considered,  which  is  the  extraordinary  low 
figure  of  twenty  individuals  per  square  mile  of  terri- 
tory. What  a  striking  contrast !  Can  the  most  ar- 
dent advocate  of  the  Malthusian  doctrine  claim  that 
the  United  States  already  has  too  many  inhabitants, 
or  is  in  danger  of  having  too  many  in  the  immediate 
future?  Do  we  not  rather  need  to  encourage  im- 
migration, to  fling  wide  open  the  gates  of  our  coun- 
try and  secure  as  large  an  addition  to  our  working 
force  as  possible? 

When  we  come  to  the  political  aspect  of  the  prob- 
lem, however,  a  wholly  different  series  of  considera- 
tions present  themselves.  The  question  now  is  not 

328 


Argument  and  Brief 

8'.  In  a  small  territory  made  up 
of  parts  of  Massachusetts, 
Pennsylvania,  and  New  Jer- 
sey, the  average  is  over 
ninety. 


9'.  In  the  United  States  as  a 
whole,  the  average  is  twen- 
ty. 


II.  From  a  political  point  of  view,  the  immigrants 
who  are  arriving  at  our  shores  make  good 
citizens,  for 

329 


Argument  and  Brief 

how  many  citizens,  but  what  sort  of  citizens.  The 
theory  of  our  government  is  not  limited  to  any  num- 
ber of  people.  It  provides  for  expansion  in  the 
number  of  representatives  in  Congress  in  proportion 
to  the  increase  in  population,  and  increases  the  num- 
ber of  Senators  as  new  States  are  formed  and  added 
to  the  Union.  Similarly  each  State  government  has 
elastic  provisions  which  enable  it  to  cover  a  popu- 
lation of  400,000  as  well  as  a  population  of  40,000. 
But  the  one  critical  test  in  determining  whether  or 
not  our  immigration  should  be  limited  for  political 
reasons  is  the  character  of  the  people  whom  we  are 
admitting  to  the  privilege  of  citizenship  in  the 
United  States. 

In  order  to  investigate  successfully  the  political 
effect  of  the  immigration,  it  is  necessary,  at  the  out- 
set, to  divide  it  into  its  constituent  nationalities,  so 
that  taking  up  each  nationality  in  turn,  we  may  see 
what  fitness  it  has  from  its  previous  political  training 
in  its  native  country  for  undertaking  the  duties  of 
American  citizenship.  The  disintegration  of  the  tide 
of  immigration  into  these  constituent  parts  affords 
some  interesting  information  which  will  be  seen  to 
have  a  bearing,  in  several  directions,  on  the  ques- 
tions under  consideration  in  this  article.  Taking 
the  statistics  of  the  year  1891  as  a  typical  year  of 

330 


Argument  and  Brief 


A.  Their  previous  political  training  has  been 
such  as  to  render  them  capable  of  learn- 
ing how  to  perform  the  duties  of  Amer- 
ican citizenship,  for 


331 


Argument  and  Brief 

recent  immigration,  the  tide  of  immigration 
amounted  in  round  numbers  to  500,000  individuals. 

The  largest  feeder  of  this  enormous  stream  came 
from  Germany,  which  sent,  roughly  speaking,  100,- 
ooo.  But  a  noticeable  point  about  this  nationality 
is  the  great  decrease  in  the  number  of  immigrants  it 
has  sent  us  in  the  last  fifteen  years.  In  the  year 
1882  the  total  German  immigration  into  the  United 
States  amounted  to  no  less  than  250,000,  but  in  1883 
and  1884  there  was  a  great  decrease,  and  since  then 
the  average  has  remained  in  the  neighborhood  of 
100,000.  We  shall  see  later  that  on  the  other  hand, 
the  immigration  from  the  Latin  and  Slav  nations  of 
Europe,  particularly  Italy,  Poland,  and  Austria, 
shows  an  enormous  rate  of  increase  in  the  same 
period,  although,  of  course,  the  absolute  amounts 
are  much  less  than  those  of  the  German  immigra- 
tion. 

The  next  largest  feeder  to  our  stream  of  immigra- 
tion in  the  year  1891,  the  typical  year  of  our  exam- 
ination, was  Italy,  which  contributed  76,000  immi- 
grants to  our  population.  It  is  noteworthy  to 
remark,  in  this  connection,  that  Italy  has  more  than 
doubled  her  annual  rate  of  contributions  to  our  peo- 
ple in  the  ten  years  under  consideration,  the  immi- 
gration from  her  shores  in  1882  being  only  32,000. 

332 


Argument  and  Brief 


I.  Of  the  500,000  immigrants  that  ar- 
rived in  1891,  Germany  sent  ap- 
proximately 100,000. 


2.     Italy  sent  76,000. 


333 


Argument  and  Brief 

The  next  largest  contributor  is  Austria,  which  in 
1891  furnished  71,000  new  members  of  our  com- 
munity. Austria,  too,  has  doubled  her  rate  of  con- 
tribution, sending  us  in  1882  only  32,000.  Next 
tome,  side  by  side,  in  their  offerings  to  our  popula- 
tion, England  and  Ireland,  each  of  which  countries 
Sends  us  about  50,000  new  inhabitants  each  year, 
and  has  continued  to  do  so  for  the  last  fifteen  years. 
Russia,  exclusive  of  Poland,  sent  47,000  in  1891, 
this  being  three  times  the  number  which  she  sent  in 
'1882,  a  large  increase.  Sweden  came  next  with 
36,000  immigrants  and  that  country  shows  a  woeful 
falling-off  of  nearly  one-half  in  the  ten  years  under 
consideration,  for  in  the  year  1882  it  sent  64,000. 
Poland  in  1891  sent  us  27,000  immigrants,  showing 
an  enormous  increase  of  nearly  sevenfold  over  its 
contribution  of  4,000  in  1882.  Scotland  and  Nor- 
way and  Denmark  all  send  about  the  same  number, 
that  is,  about  12,000  each ;  Norway  showing  a  dim- 
inution in  the  decade  ending  1891,  from  29,000  in 
1882,  but  the  other  two  remaining  about  stationary. 
Switzerland  in  1891  sent  6,000,  a  diminution  from 
10,000  in  1882.  The  Netherlands  sent  5,000  in 
1891,  a  decrease  from  9,000  in  1882.  France  sent 
6,000  and  Belgium  3,000,  these  figures  being  about 
the  same  during  all  the  years  covered  by  our  inves- 
334 


Argument  and  Brief 

3.     Austria  -sent  78,000. 


4.  England    and    Ireland    sent    50,000 

each. 

5.  Russia,  exclusive  of  Poland,  sent  47,- 

ooo. 

6.  Sweden  sent  36,000. 


7.  Poland  sent  27,000. 

8.  Scotland,     Norway,     and    Denmark 

sent  12,000  each. 


9.     Switzerland  sent  6,000. 

10.  The  Netherlands  sent  5,000. 

11.  France  sent  6,000. 

12.  Belgium  sent  3,000. 

335 


Argument  and  Brief 

tigation.  I  have  left  out  of  account  the  only  other 
important  factor  in  our  immigration  in  the  ten  years 
considered,  namely,  China,  because  the  door  was  shut 
in  its  face  with  considerable  emphasis  in  1883,  and 
the  immigration  from  China  to  the  Western  States, 
which  in  1882  amounted  to  40,000  fell  in  1883  to 
8,000,  and  in  1884  to  279  individuals,  and  may, 
therefore,  be  neglected  at  the  present  time. 

Now,  an  examination  of  the  political  institutions 
in  the  countries  from  which  these  immigrants  come 
would  show  that  in  almost  no  case,  that  of  Russia 
and  Poland  alone  excepted,  are  the  elements  of  rep- 
resentative government  wholly  unknown  to  the  com- 
mon people.  In  most  of  these  countries,  some  form 
of  popular  government  has,  either  wholly  or  par- 
tially, gained  a  footing,  with  the  inevitable  result  of 
accustoming  people  more  or  less  to  representative 
institutions.  Yet  the  short  time  that  this  has  been 
the  case  in  many  of  the  countries  which  pour  half 
or  over  of  the  total  flood  of  immigration  into  the 
United  States,  and  the  long  centuries  of  despotism 
which  preceded  this  partial  and  recent  enlighten- 
ment, make  it  painfully  evident  that  there  can  be,  in 
the  large  part  of  our  immigrants,  little  knowledge  of 
the  republican  form  of  government,  and  little  in- 
herited aptitude  for  such  government.  It  would  at 

336 


Argument  and  Brief 


13.  Except  in  Russia  and  Poland,  the  ele- 
ments of  representative  govern- 
ment are  not  wholly  unknown  to 
these  people,  for 

a.  In  most  of  these  countries  some 
form  of  popular  government 
has  either  wholly  or  partially 
gained  a  footing. 


337 


Argument  and  Brief 

first  seem  as  if  the  results  of  such  immigration  must 
be  disastrous  to  our  country. 

And  yet  the  situation  is  not  so  hopeless.  There  is 
nothing  mysterious,  or  even  very  complicated,  about 
republican  institutions.  A  little  time,  a  little  study, 
a  little  experience  with  the  practical  workings  of 
elections,  is  sufficient  to  convey  to  any  person  of  or- 
dinary intelligence  as  much  familiarity  with  these 
matters  as  is  necessary  for  the  intelligent  apprecia- 
tion of  their  objects  and  purposes.  Nor  is  the  ma- 
terial out  of  which  the  prospective  citizen  is  to  be 
made  wholly  unfitted  for  its  purpose.  To  be  sure, 
the  Latin  races,  the  Slavs,  Hungarians,  Poles,  and 
others  have  no  inherited  aptitude,  nor  if  we  may 
judge  from  the  history  of  the  races,  any  inherent 
capacity  for  self-government  and  free  institutions, 
but,  as  I  have  before  said,  in  almost  every  case  they 
have  had  in  their  own  country  a  partial  training  in 
the  forms  of  representative  government.  All  that 
is  needed  is  to  amalgamate  this  heterogeneous  mass, 
to  fuse  its  elements  in  the  heat  and  glow  of  our  na- 
tional life,  until,  formed  in  the  mould  of  everyday 
experience,  each  one  shall  possess  the  characteristic 
features  of  what  we  believe  to  be  the  highest  type 
of  human  development  which  the  world  has  seen, 
the  American  citizen. 

338 


Argument  and  Brief 


B.    The  duties  of  the  American  citizen  are  not 

hard  to  learn,  for 

I.    Republican   institutions  are  not   very 
complicated. 


339 


Argument  and  Brief 

The  process  of  acquiring  American  citizenship  is 
regulated  by  acts  of  Congress.  It  is  a  simple  proc- 
ess. Practically  all  that  is  required  is  a  continuous 
residence  of  five  years  in  the  States,  and  one  year  in 
the  special  State  in  which  citizenship  is  applied  for, 
and  the  declaration  of  intention  to  become  a  citizen 
may  be  made  immediately  upon  landing.  This  last 
point  will  be  seen  later  to  be  very  important. 

Citizenship  in  the  United  States,  however,  under 
the  act  of  Congress,  does  not  carry  with  it  the  right 
to  vote.  This  right  is  entirely  a  matter  of  State 
regulation,  and  the  Constitution  or  statutes  of  each 
State  settle  who  shall  have  the  right  to  vote  in  its 
elections.  The  underlying  idea  of  the  whole  system 
is  universal  male  suffrage,  and  the  franchise  is 
granted  (after  a  certain  residence,  which  will  be  dis- 
cussed later)  with  only  certain  general  limitations 
of  obvious  utility,  such  as  that  the  voter  must  be 
twenty-one  years  of  age,  that  he  must  not  be  an  idiot 
or  insane,  and  generally,  that  he  must  not  have  been 
convicted  of  any  felony  or  infamous  crime,  although 
in  many  States  a  pardon,  or  the  serving  of  a  sen- 
tence, will  restore  a  felon  to  his  civil  rights.  In  a 
few  of  the  States  paupers  are  also  excluded  from 
voting.  With  the  question  of  woman  suffrage  we 
have  nothing  to  do,  as  its  settlement,  one  way  or  the 
340 


Argument  and  Brief 

C.    The  political  ignorance  of  the  immigrant 

can  be  remedied,  for 
I.  Before  extending  immigrants  the 
franchise,  States  can  insist  on  re- 
quirements that  will  secure  some 
preliminary  training  in  free  political 
institutions,  since 

a.     The  right  to  vote  is  entirely  a  mat- 
ter of  State  regulation,  for 
i'.     Citizenship,    which    is    regu- 
lated by  Congress,  does  not 
carry  with  it  the  franchise. 


341 


Argument  and  Brief 

other,  does  not  affect  the  subject  we  are  discussing. 
The  important  qualification,  however,  in  relation 
to  the  subjects  which  we  are  discussing,  is  that  which 
requires  residence  in  the  State  previous  to  the  exer- 
cise of  the  franchise.  And  on  this  point  the  States 
may  be  divided  into  two  great  classes.  One  class 
allows  no  one  to  vote  who  is  not,  under  the  laws  of 
Congress,  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  either  na- 
tive or  naturalized.  As  we  have  seen  that  five  years' 
residence  is  a  requisite  to  United  States  citizenship, 
these  States,  therefore,  require  five  years'  residence 
as  a  prerequisite  to  acquiring  the  right  to  vote. 
These  States  are  California,  Connecticut,  Georgia, 
Illinois,  Iowa,  Kentucky,  Maine,  Maryland,  Massa- 
chusetts, Michigan,  Montana,  Nevada,  New  Jersey, 
New  York,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island, 
South  Carolina,  Tennessee,  Vermont,  Virginia,  and 
Washington.  This  requirement  is  admirably  calcu- 
lated to  secure  that  preliminary  training  in  the 
practical  working  of  our  institutions  which  must 
be  necessary  to  most  of  the  immigrants  before 
they  can  intelligently  exercise  the  rights  which 
are  conferred  upon  them  by  American  citizen- 
ship and  we  cannot  but  admire  the  sagacity  and 
judiciousness  of  those  who  framed  our  naturaliza- 
tion laws  in  selecting  this  period  of  time  for 
342 


Argument  and  Brief 


b.  Already  twenty-two  States  allow 
no  one  to  vote  who  has  not  been 
in  the  United  States  at  least  five 
years. 


341 


Argument  and  Brief 

the  pupilaje  of  the  intending  citizen.  The  period 
is  long  enough  even  for  one  who  is  engrossed 
in  the  cares  of  earning  a  support  for  himself  and 
his  family,  amid  all  the  excitement  and  novelty  of 
a  changed  residence,  to  acquire  in  the  five  succeeding 
annual  elections  a  sufficient  knowledge  of  republican 
government  for  all  practical  purpose.  To  delay  him 
longer  in  the  exercise  of  his  political  rights  would 
be  an  injustice ;  to  admit  him  to  them  sooner  would 
be  an  imprudence. 

There  are  in  a  few  States  other  qualifications  re- 
quired of  a  voter.  The  most  important  of  these  is 
the  educational  qualification,  which  exists  only  in 
Connecticut  and  Massachusetts.  In  neither  of  these 
is  it  very  severe.  In  Connecticut  the  voter  must 
be  able  to  read  any  article  in  the  State  Constitution, 
and  any  section  of  the  statutes.  In  Massachusetts 
he  must  be  able  to  read  the  Constitution  and  to  write 
his  name.  Too  much  praise  can  hardly  be  given  to 
these  requirements.  The  whole  edifice  of  our  na- 
tional life  is  founded  upon  education,  and  to  this 
potent  factor  must  we  look  for  many  of  the  improve- 
ments necessary  to  the  proper  development  of  our 
national  life. 

In  quite  a  number  of  States  a  pecuniary  qualifica- 
tion exists  in  the  shape  of  the  payment  of  some  tax, 

344 


Argument  and  Brief 


c.     Massachusetts     and     Connecticut 
have  an  educational  test. 


345 


Argument  and  Brief 

generally  a  poll  tax,  within  two  years  previous  to 
the  date  of  the  election.  This  requirement  does  not 
seem  to  be  so  germane  to  the  spirit  of  our  institu- 
tions as  the  other.  The  great  present  danger  of  our 
country  is  the  danger  of  becoming  a  plutocracy,  and 
while  there  is  no  doubt  that  a  widespread  interest 
in  property  develops  stability  of  institutions,  yet 
there  is  also  great  danger  of  capital  obtaining  so  firm 
and  strong  a  hold  upon  political  institutions  as  to 
crush  out  the  life  of  free  government  and  to  convert 
the  national  government  into  a  species  of  close  cor- 
poration, in  which  the  relative  wealth  of  the  parties 
alone  controls.  This  qualification  is  found  in  Dela- 
ware, Florida,  Georgia,  Mississippi,  Nevada,  Penn- 
sylvania, Tennessee,  and  Texas. 

We  have  now  examined  with  some  thoroughness 
the  component  parts  of  the  tide  of  immigration  as 
it  arrives  at  our  shores ;  we  have  seen  what  nation- 
alities go  to  make  up  the  grand  total  and  what  pre- 
vious training  they  have  had  in  the  political  institu- 
tions of  their  native  countries  to  fit  them  for 
[American  citizenship,  and  what  additional  require- 
ments are  imposed  upon  them  by  our  statutes  before 
they  can  participate  in  voting  and  government  »"n 
this  country.  What  are  the  conclusions  to  which 
the  view  of  these  facts  brings  us?  They  seem  to 

346 


Argument  and  Brief 


d.    Eight  States  insist  on  a  pecuniary 
qualification. 


347 


Argument  and  Brief 

me  to  be  these :  first,  that  the  growth  of  immigration 
is  a  desirable  thing  for  this  country  from  an  indus- 
trial point  of  view ;  second,  that  the  immigrants  who 
arrive  at  our  shores  are  for  the  most  part  good 
material  out  of  which  to  make  American  citizens. 
Applying  these  conclusions  to  the  questions  which 
were  stated  at  the  outset  of  this  article;  first,  is  it 
for  the  advantage  of  the  United  States  that  immigra- 
tion should  be  checked  or  limited?  second,  if  so,  in 
what  way  should  the  check  or  limit  be  applied?  the 
answer  would  be  that  no  further  check  or  limit 
should  be  applied,  but  that  a  check  should  be  placed 
upon  the  exercise  of  the  franchise  by  immigrants  in 
all  States  by  requiring  a  residence  of  five  years  in 
this  country  before  they  can  vote,  and  by  also  re- 
quiring some  moderate  educational  test. 

With  these  safeguards  established  we  might  look 
without  any  serious  apprehension  upon  the  increase 
of  our  population.  The  founders  of  our  state 
moulded  the  outlines  of  its  form  in  large  and  noble 
lines.  The  skeleton  has  grown  and  clothed  itself 
with  flesh  with  almost  incredible  rapidity  in  the  hun- 
dred years  of  its  existence.  But  it  is  still  young. 
We  should  avoid  any  measures  which  would  stunt 
or  deform  its  growth  and  should  allow  it  to  develop 
freely  and  generously  till  the  full-grown  American 

348 


Argument  and  Brief 

CONCLUSION. 

The  following  points  have  been  proved : — 
I.    The  growth  of  immigration  is  a  desirable  thing 
for  this  country  from  an  industrial  point  of 
view. 

II.  The  immigrants  who  arrive  at  our  shores  are 
for  the  most  part  good  material  out  of  which 
to  make  American  citizens. 


Therefore,  no  further  check  or  limit  should  be 
applied  to  immigration. 


349 


Argument  and  Brief 

nation  stands  forth  pre-eminent  among  the  nations 
of  the  earth,  in  size,  as  well  as  in  character  and 
organization,  and  man's  last  experiment  in  govern- 
ment is  clearly  seen  to  be  an  unequivocal  success. 


350 


APPENDIX  B 
A  LIST  OF  PROPOSITIONS. 

1.  The  United  States  army  should  be  greatly  en- 
larged. 

2.  Japan   was   justified   in   waging   war   against 
Russia. 

3.  A  formal  alliance  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  for  the  protection  and  advance- 
ment of  their  common  interests  would  be  expedient. 

4.  Military  tactics  should  be  taught  in  the  public 
schools. 

5.  The  United  States  navy  should  be  greatly  en- 
larged. 

6.  The  aggressions  of  England  in  South  Africa 
are  justifiable. 

7.  The    nations   of   Europe   should   combine   to 
bring  about   drastic   reforms   in   the   Congo   Free 
State. 

8.  Ireland  should  be  granted  home  rule. 

9.  Japanese  control  will  promote  the  political  and 

351 


Propositions 

economic  interests  of  Corea  more  than  would  Rus- 
sian control. 

ID.  Armed  intervention  on  the  part  of  any  nation 
to  collect  private  claims  against  any  other  nation 
is  not  justifiable. 

11.  The  annexation  of  Canada  by  treaty  with 
Great  Britain  would  be  economically  advantageous 
to  the  United  States. 

12.  The  United  States  should  establish  commer- 
cial reciprocity  with  Canada. 

13.  The  United  States  should  maintain  a  system 
of  subsidies  for  the  protection  of  American  merchant 
marine. 

14.  Congress  should  have  decided  in  favor  of  a 
sea-level  canal  at  Panama. 

15.  Woman  suffrage   should  be  adopted  by  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution. 

1 6.  The  practice  of  relieving  financial  stringency 
by  temporary  deposits  of  United  States  Treasury 
funds  in  selected  banks  should  be  discontinued. 

17.  Labor  unions  are  detrimental  to  the  best  in- 
terests of  the  workingman. 

1 8.  Free  trade  should  be  established  between  the 
United  States  and  the  Philippine  Islands. 

19.  State  boards  of  arbitration,  with  compulsory 


352 


Propositions 

powers,  should  be  appointed  to  settle  disputes  be- 
tween employers  and  employees. 

20.  The    United    States    should   discontinue    the 
protective  tariff  policy. 

21.  The    Federal    government    should    own    and 
operate  the  interstate  railroads  within  its  borders. 

22.  Railroad  pooling  should  be  legalized. 

23.  The  tax  on  the  issues  of  state  banks  should  be 
repealed. 

24.  The  United  States  should  adopt  one-cent  post- 
age. 

25.  American  municipalities  should  own  and  op- 
erate their  street-car  systems. 

26.  The  President  of  the  United  States  should  be 
elected  for  a  term  of  six  years  and  be  ineligible  for 
re-election. 

27.  The  President  of  the  United  States  should  be 
elected  by  popular  vote. 

28.  Ex-Presidents  of  the  United  States  should  be 
Senators-at-large  for  life. 

29.  United  States  Senators  should  be  elected  by 
popular  vote. 

30.  The  powers  of  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  should  be  restricted. 

31.  The  United  States  should  institute  a  system 
of  responsible  cabinet  government. 

353 


Propositions 

32.  Judges  should  be  elected  by  direct  vote  of  the 
people. 

33.  All  cities  in  the  State  of ,  having  at  least 

ten    thousand    inhabitants    should    adopt    the    Des 
Moines  plan  of  government. 

34.  The  right  of  suffrage  should  be  limited  by  an 
educational  test. 

35.  The  State  of  — —  should  adopt  the  initiative 
and  referendum  system  of  government. 

36.  Congress  should  repeal  the  Fifteenth  Amend- 
ment. 

37.  Members  of  State  legislatures  should  be  for- 
bidden by  law  to  accept  free  passes  on  any  railroads. 

38.  Corporations  engaged  in  interstate  commerce 
should  be  required  to  take  out  a  Federal  license. 

39.  Women  who  pay  taxes  should  be  permitted  to 
vote  at  municipal  elections. 

40.  The  annexation  of  Cuba  to  the  United  States 
would  be  for  the  best  interests  of  Cuba. 

41.  The  United  States  should  grant  full  .citizen- 
ship to  the  people  of  Porto  Rico. 

42.  The  United  States  should  establish  an  old  age- 
pension  system  similar  to  the  one  in  operation  in 
Germany. 

43.  Political  union  with  Cuba  would  be  for  the 
advantage  of  the  United  States. 

354 


Propositions 

44.  The  United  States  should  permanently  retain 
the  Philippines. 

45.  The  House  of  Representatives  should  elect  its 
standing  committees. 

46.  The  white  citizens  of  the  Southern  States  are 
justified  in  maintaining  their  political  supremacy. 

47.  Congress  should  prohibit  corporate  contribu- 
tions to  political  campaign  funds. 

48.  The  present  powers  of  courts  to  grant  injunc- 
tions should  be  curtailed. 

49.  In  all  criminal  cases  three-fourths  of  a  jury 
should  be  competent  to  render  a  verdict. 

50.  The  United  States  government  is  treating  the 
Indians  unjustly. 

51.  Capital  punishment  should  be  abolished. 

52.  Education  should  be  compulsory  to  the  age 
of  sixteen. 

53.  The  fully  elective  system  of  studies  should  be 
introduced  into  all  colleges. 

54.  College  students  receiving  an  average  daily 
grade  of  eighty-five  per  cent,  in  a  subject  should  be 
excused  from  final  examination  in  that  subject. 

55.  Class    rushes    should   be   abolished   at   

College. 

56.  Hazing  should  be  abolished  at  all  colleges. 


355 


Propositions 

57.  Freshmen  should  be  debarred  from  intercol- 
legiate athletic  contests. 

58.  Athletics,  as  conducted  at  present,  are  detri- 
mental to College. 

59.  The  Federal  government  should  maintain  a 
college  for  the  education  of  men  for  the  diplomatic 
and  consular  service. 

60.  A  large  city  affords  a  better  location  for  a 
college  than  does  the  country. 

61.  The    "  honor    system "    should    prevail    at 
College. 

62.  American  universities  should  admit  women  on 
equal  terms  with  men. 

63.  American  colleges  should  admit  students  only 
on  examination. 

64.  American  colleges  should  confer  the  degree 
of  Bachelor  of  Arts  in  three  years. 

65.  Public  schools  should  not  furnish  free  text- 
books. 

66.  Secret   societies   should  not  exist  in  public 
high  schools. 

67.  The  education  of  the  American  negro  should 
be  industrial  rather  than  liberal. 

68.  For  the  average  student,  the  small  college  is 
preferable  to  the  large  college. 

356 


Propositions 

69.  American  colleges  should  adopt  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  Simplified  Spelling  Board. 

70.  For  the  United  States,  the  type  of  the  German 
university  is  preferable  to  the  type  of  the  American 
university. 

71.  Fraternities  are  undesirable  in  colleges. 

72.  The  United  States  Army  canteen  should  be 
restored. 

73.  There  should  be  national  laws  governing  mar- 
riage and  divorce. 

74.  High  License  is  preferable  to  Prohibition. 

75.  The  Federal  government  should  take  action 
to  prevent  children  under  the  age  of  fourteen  from 
working  in  mines  and  factories. 

76.  The  elimination  of  private  profits  offers  the 
best  solution  of  the  liquor  problem. 

77.  Employers  are  justified  in  refusing  recogni- 
tion to  labor  unions. 

78.  The  United  States  should  grant  permanent 
copyright. 

79.  The  Chinese  should  be  excluded   from   the 
Philippines. 

80.  States   should  prohibit  vivisection  involving 
great  pain. 

81.  The  United  States  should  establish  a  parcels 
post. 

357 


Propositions 

82.  The  United  States  should  establish  a  postal 
savings  bank. 

83.  The  veto  power  of  the  House  of  Lords  should 
be  annulled. 

84.  Abdul  Hamid  was  unjustly  deposed. 

85.  The  present  laws  relating  to  Chinese  immigra- 
tion should  be  amended  to  include  the  Japanese. 

86.  The  United  States  should  admit  the  Chinese 
on  equal  terms  with  other  immigrants. 

87.  Further  centralization  in  the  power  of  the 
Federal  government  is  contrary  to  the  best  interests 
of  the  United  States. 

88.  The  present  tendency  of  government  conser- 
vation of  natural  resources  is  contrary  to  the  best 
interests  of  the  United  States. 

89.  Commercial  reciprocity  between  the  United 
States  and  Brazil  would  benefit  the  United  States. 

90.  At  present  the  United  States  should  maintain 
no  navy  yard  on  the  Gulf  Coast. 

91.  The  United  States  should  admit  all  raw  ma- 
terials free  of  duty. 

92.  The  United  States  should  admit  sugar  free  of 
duty. 

93.  The    date   of   the    Presidential   inauguration 
should  be  changed. 

94.  Postmasters  should  be  elected  by  popular  vote. 

358 


Propositions 

95.  All  cities  in  the  United  States  should  establish 
and  enforce  a  curfew  law. 

96.  The  three  term  system  is  preferable  to  the 
semester  system  at College. 

97.  The  products  of  prison  labor  should  not  be 
allowed  to  compete  in  the  open  market. 

98.  New  York  City  should  establish  a  dramatic 
censorship. 

99.  Convicts  should  not  be  farmed  out  to  private 
contractors. 

100.  The  State  of should  establish  a  property 

qualification  for  voting. 


359 


INDEX 


Admissions  against  interest, 

124. 
Affirmative,    work   of,    263, 

268. 

Ambiguous  terms,  225. 
Amplify  and  diminish,  272. 
Analogy,  156. 

Analysis  of  proposition,  47. 
As   an  aid   in  refutation, 

213. 

Answering  one's  self,  212. 
Antecedent  probability,  141. 

Tests  for,  144. 
Arguer,  qualifications  of  an, 

10. 

Arguing  in  a  circle,  224. 
Argument  and  its  brief,  316. 
Argumentation,       definition 

of,  3- 

Purpose  of,  3. 
Field  of,  4. 
Benefits  of,  5. 
Not  an  art,  6. 
Aims  of,  7. 

•    Twofold  nature  of,  7. 
Argument-urn    ad    hominent, 

235. 

Argumentum    ad    populum, 
236. 


Assertion,  105. 

Audience,  definition  of,  29. 

Authority,  127. 

Begging  the  question,  220. 
Brief-drawing,     rules     for, 

86,   174,   181. 
Briefs,   model,  93,   96,   183, 

317. 
Burden  of  proof,  18. 

Composition    and    division, 

232. 

Conciliation,  29. 
Conclusion,  302. 

Errors  in,  309. 
Concreteness,  278. 
Connectives  in  a  brief,  174. 
Conviction,  definition  of,  7. 

In  introduction,  47. 

In  discussion,  105. 

In  conclusion,  303. 

Debate,  definition  of,  3. 

Suggestions  for,  250. 

Special  features  of,  274. 

How  to  judge,  300. 
Deduction,  136. 


361 


Index 


Definition,  47. 

By  authority,  48. 

By  illustration,  49. 
Delivery,  283. 

Position,  285. 

Gestures,  290. 

Voice,  292. 

Attitude     toward     oppo- 
nents, 296. 
Dilemma,  239. 
Discussion,  105. 

Enthymeme,  138. 
Evidence,    classification   of, 
108. 

Sources  of,  109. 

Tests  of,  in. 

Negative,  126. 

Against  interest,  124. 
Example,  150. 
Explanation  of  proposition, 

53- 

t 

Fairness  as  means  of  con- 
ciliation, 32. 
Fallacies,  220. 
Begging  the  question,  220. 
Ambiguous  terms,  225. 
False  cause,  227. 
Composition  and  division, 

232. 
Ignoring      the      question, 

234- 

False  cause,  227. 
Figures  of  speech,  281. 


362 


Generalization,  151. 
Gestures,  290. 

Ignoring  the  question,  239. 
Indentation  in  brief,  90. 
Indexes  for  reference,  79. 
Induction,  132. 
Introduction,  work  of,  28. 

Persuasion  in,  28. 

Conviction  in,  47. 

Brief  of,  84. 
Issues,  how  to  find,  62. 

Tests  for,  73. 

Modesty  as  means  of  con- 
ciliation, 31. 

Negative  evidence,  126. 
Negative,  work  of,  266,  268. 

Partition,  75. 

Persuasion,  definition  of,  7. 

In  introduction,  28. 

In  discussion,  160. 

In  conclusion,  303. 
Post  hoc  ergo  propter  hoc, 

228. 

Preliminary  reading,  78. 
Proof,  definition  of,  106. 

Necessity  for,  105. 
Proposition,     definition    of, 
13- 

How  to  phrase,  17. 

Of  fact,  19. 

Of  policy,  19. 

With  only  one  side,  20. 


Index 


Proposition,  ambiguous,  21. 

Too  general,  22. 

Combined,  23. 
Propositions,  list  of,  351. 

Qualifying  conclusions,  311. 

Reasoning,  130. 

Inductive,  132. 

Deductive,  136. 

From    Antecedent    prob- 
ability, 141. 

From  Sign,  146. 

From  Example,  150. 
Rebuttal  speeches,  270. 
Reductio  ad  absurdum,  237. 
Refutation,  210. 

Special  methods  of,  237. 

Arrangement    of   material 
for,  260. 


Sign,  146. 

Tests  for,  147. 
Sincerity  as  means  of  con- 
ciliation, 33. 
Statistics,  275. 
Subject,  importance  of,  37. 

Timeliness  of,  38. 
Subjects  suitable  for  debate, 

13- 

Syllogism,  137. 
Symbols,    use   of,   in  brief, 

91. 

Term,  definition  of,  13. 

Unity,  255,  274. 
Variety,  274. 

What  each  debater  must  do, 
263. 


363 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN     INITIAL    FINE    OF    25    CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $I.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


APR    12 
OEC   13  1933 


MAY  21  1S40 


DEC  11 


LD  21-50m-l,'33 


Yb 


2673^5 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


